https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185180 Under Article 31 of the Limitation Act, limitation for a suit against a carrier for non-delivery or delayed delivery runs from the expiry of the reasonable time required for carriage, unless a contract fixes a different delivery time. Final refusal by the carrier is not the starting point, though a later acknowledgment of liability may create a fresh period. Applying that rule, the suit was found time-barred on the facts. The Court also allowed a limited remand so the appellant could establish entitlement to limitation relief under the Displaced Persons legislation, with the inquiry confined to that issue alone. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2016 18:20:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185180 Under Article 31 of the Limitation Act, limitation for a suit against a carrier for non-delivery or delayed delivery runs from the expiry of the reasonable time required for carriage, unless a contract fixes a different delivery time. Final refusal by the carrier is not the starting point, though a later acknowledgment of liability may create a fresh period. Applying that rule, the suit was found time-barred on the facts. The Court also allowed a limited remand so the appellant could establish entitlement to limitation relief under the Displaced Persons legislation, with the inquiry confined to that issue alone. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185180