<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (11) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275685</link>
    <description>Article 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a one-year period for suits against carriers for loss or injury to goods, and time runs from when the injury occurs, not from later knowledge of the full extent of damage. The note also explains that a carrier resisting the claim on limitation must show that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before suit. It further states that correspondence will save limitation only if it clearly acknowledges liability; mere reference to investigation, a request not to sue immediately, or a damage-assessment certificate is insufficient. On the facts discussed, the suits were treated as time-barred and the correspondence as ineffective to extend limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 17:08:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275685</link>
      <description>Article 30 of the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a one-year period for suits against carriers for loss or injury to goods, and time runs from when the injury occurs, not from later knowledge of the full extent of damage. The note also explains that a carrier resisting the claim on limitation must show that the loss or injury occurred more than one year before suit. It further states that correspondence will save limitation only if it clearly acknowledges liability; mere reference to investigation, a request not to sue immediately, or a damage-assessment certificate is insufficient. On the facts discussed, the suits were treated as time-barred and the correspondence as ineffective to extend limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>