TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Plaintiff's claim for arrears pre-1957 barred by limitation; awarded arrears from 1957-1959 despite limitation issues.</h1> <h3>Corporation of Calcutta Versus Pulin Chandra Daw and Ors.</h3> The Ct held that the plaintiff's claim for arrears from 1951 to 1957 was barred by limitation, as Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, did not apply. ... - Issues:Determining if the plaintiff can benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 due to earlier proceedings to save limitation.Analysis:The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of arrears of exemption fee for a period from 1951 to 1959, claiming it as the successor in interest of the Corporation. The defendants contested, arguing that a major part of the claim was barred by limitation and that the cause of action in the current suit differed from the earlier proceedings.The central issue was whether the plaintiff could exclude the time spent in the earlier proceedings to save limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiff contended that the earlier suit was prosecuted in good faith, citing precedents like Ramdutt v. E. D. Sasoon & Co. and S. K. Dutt v. Purnachandra Sinha to support their argument that the phrase 'other cause of a like nature' should be interpreted liberally. However, the defendants emphasized the requirement that the Court must be unable to entertain the earlier proceedings due to a defect of jurisdiction or a similar cause.The Court examined various precedents, such as Siddalingana Gowd v. Bhimana Gowd, Madan Mohan Jew v. Bejoyabati Dassi, and Jai Kishen Singh v. Peoples Bank of Northern India, to determine the applicability of Section 14. It was noted that the earlier suit in 1952 was decided on its merits, and there was no defect of jurisdiction or infirmity preventing the Courts from entertaining it.Ultimately, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for arrears of fees from 1951 to 1957 was indeed barred by limitation. The cause of action in the current suit was deemed distinct from the earlier proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to exclude the time spent in the prior proceedings for computing the limitation period under Section 14. A decree was granted in favor of the plaintiff for the undisputed sum of arrear fees from 1957 to 1959, along with costs, despite the main issue being decided in favor of the defendant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
