https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198092 A claim for refund of a contractual security deposit retained by deduction from running bills is not governed by Article 18 or by Articles 22, 24 or 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court treated the retained sum as a refundable security deposit rather than a mere price payment, and reasoned that the claim is not based on breach of a promise to repay but on the refundable character of the deposit after completion of the contract. In the absence of a specific article, Article 113 applied, and limitation began to run from the date of completion of the contract. The suit was therefore within time. en-us Mon, 27 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:12:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198092 A claim for refund of a contractual security deposit retained by deduction from running bills is not governed by Article 18 or by Articles 22, 24 or 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court treated the retained sum as a refundable security deposit rather than a mere price payment, and reasoned that the claim is not based on breach of a promise to repay but on the refundable character of the deposit after completion of the contract. In the absence of a specific article, Article 113 applied, and limitation began to run from the date of completion of the contract. The suit was therefore within time. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198092