https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193469 The final judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the first appellate Court's decision and restoring the trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a loan suit. The appellate Court ruled that a cheque payment did not save limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act unless honored, dismissing the suit due to lack of relief explicitly sought for the dishonored cheque. The judgment clarified that handing over a negotiable instrument constituted payment upon acceptance, impacting the limitation period. The defendant's arguments on territorial jurisdiction and lack of opportunity were addressed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193469 The final judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the first appellate Court's decision and restoring the trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a loan suit. The appellate Court ruled that a cheque payment did not save limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act unless honored, dismissing the suit due to lack of relief explicitly sought for the dishonored cheque. The judgment clarified that handing over a negotiable instrument constituted payment upon acceptance, impacting the limitation period. The defendant's arguments on territorial jurisdiction and lack of opportunity were addressed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193469