https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184840 For a State Financial Corporation's suit to recover the balance remaining after sale of secured assets under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, limitation runs from the point when the sale proceeds are adjusted and the shortfall becomes ascertainable, because the guarantor's liability on the indemnity or guarantee for the balance does not crystallise merely on default or recall. The claim was treated as governed by Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the earlier Section 31 ruling was said not to determine this starting-point issue. Accordingly, the operative cause of action arose only after sale and adjustment, not from the recall notice. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:19:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184840 For a State Financial Corporation's suit to recover the balance remaining after sale of secured assets under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, limitation runs from the point when the sale proceeds are adjusted and the shortfall becomes ascertainable, because the guarantor's liability on the indemnity or guarantee for the balance does not crystallise merely on default or recall. The claim was treated as governed by Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the earlier Section 31 ruling was said not to determine this starting-point issue. Accordingly, the operative cause of action arose only after sale and adjustment, not from the recall notice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184840