https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296264 A damages claim arising from repeated delay in handing over a works contract site was treated as a claim for breach of contractual obligations under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court held that each distinct delay constituted a separate breach, so limitation ran from each breach rather than from final payment or termination, and Article 113 did not apply. It further held that final bill payment and refund of security deposit did not amount to acknowledgment of liability for unadjudicated damages, section 18 was unavailable because the claim had been repudiated, and section 15(2) did not save the suit. The claim was therefore time-barred. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:55:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296264 A damages claim arising from repeated delay in handing over a works contract site was treated as a claim for breach of contractual obligations under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court held that each distinct delay constituted a separate breach, so limitation ran from each breach rather than from final payment or termination, and Article 113 did not apply. It further held that final bill payment and refund of security deposit did not amount to acknowledgment of liability for unadjudicated damages, section 18 was unavailable because the claim had been repudiated, and section 15(2) did not save the suit. The claim was therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296264