https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185239 Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not treated as exhaustive of all tortious claims; the discussion distinguishes negligent acts, defective planning, and breach of public duty from the narrower class of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance. It also explains that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was not displaced by Modern Cultivators for such claims. On limitation, the operative date is framed by accrual of actionable loss, not merely the initial wrongful act, so time does not run before damage is suffered or the claim is refused after assessment. The claim was therefore treated as falling outside the narrow limitation bar. en-us Wed, 04 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185239 Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was not treated as exhaustive of all tortious claims; the discussion distinguishes negligent acts, defective planning, and breach of public duty from the narrower class of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance. It also explains that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was not displaced by Modern Cultivators for such claims. On limitation, the operative date is framed by accrual of actionable loss, not merely the initial wrongful act, so time does not run before damage is suffered or the claim is refused after assessment. The claim was therefore treated as falling outside the narrow limitation bar. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185239