<?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>1915 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296062</link>
    <description>A cheque delivered and honoured in part-payment of principal operates as payment when honoured and to that extent extinguishes the debt, with revival only if dishonoured on presentation. On the facts, the debtor&#039;s cheque was paid before expiry of the prescribed period, so part of the principal had been paid within section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act and limitation was saved. The proviso requiring the fact of payment to appear in the payer&#039;s handwriting was treated as satisfied because the payment was made by cheque. The argument based on appropriation of payment and separate causes of action in a running account was rejected as inconsistent with the true character of such accounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 1915 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:52:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1915 (3) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296062</link>
      <description>A cheque delivered and honoured in part-payment of principal operates as payment when honoured and to that extent extinguishes the debt, with revival only if dishonoured on presentation. On the facts, the debtor&#039;s cheque was paid before expiry of the prescribed period, so part of the principal had been paid within section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act and limitation was saved. The proviso requiring the fact of payment to appear in the payer&#039;s handwriting was treated as satisfied because the payment was made by cheque. The argument based on appropriation of payment and separate causes of action in a running account was rejected as inconsistent with the true character of such accounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 1915 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>