https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290598 A business name used for a family trade did not deprive minor plaintiffs of the protection of legal disability under the Limitation Act; a firm is not a separate juristic person, and the fact that an agent or manager could have acted during minority did not bar the minors from claiming the benefit of Section 6, so the suit was not time-barred. Litigation expenses incurred in guardianship proceedings were also not recoverable by set-off or under Section 70, because they were unrelated to the hundi transaction and did not amount to a lawful, non-gratuitous act conferring a voluntarily enjoyed benefit. The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was maintained. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2020 16:32:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290598 A business name used for a family trade did not deprive minor plaintiffs of the protection of legal disability under the Limitation Act; a firm is not a separate juristic person, and the fact that an agent or manager could have acted during minority did not bar the minors from claiming the benefit of Section 6, so the suit was not time-barred. Litigation expenses incurred in guardianship proceedings were also not recoverable by set-off or under Section 70, because they were unrelated to the hundi transaction and did not amount to a lawful, non-gratuitous act conferring a voluntarily enjoyed benefit. The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jul 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290598