https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456245 A loan recovery suit based on default in repayment under a fixed EMI schedule was held to fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not Article 55. Article 55 applies to suits for compensation for breach of contract and may govern claims based on successive breaches, but where the agreement fixes instalment dates and permits the lender to treat a defaulted EMI as an event of default and issue recall, limitation runs from the relevant defaulted instalment made the subject of recall. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, by itself, cannot determine the applicable limitation period or justify dismissal on that footing. The limitation finding adopted by the trial court was set aside. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2024 19:57:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456245 A loan recovery suit based on default in repayment under a fixed EMI schedule was held to fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not Article 55. Article 55 applies to suits for compensation for breach of contract and may govern claims based on successive breaches, but where the agreement fixes instalment dates and permits the lender to treat a defaulted EMI as an event of default and issue recall, limitation runs from the relevant defaulted instalment made the subject of recall. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, by itself, cannot determine the applicable limitation period or justify dismissal on that footing. The limitation finding adopted by the trial court was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456245