https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461140 A money-recovery counter-claim was held to fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rather than Article 22 because the admitted facts showed a conscious payment made in 1994, not a deposit or security pending settlement. On that factual foundation, the claim could not be recharacterised to attract a different limitation article. The concurrent findings that limitation had expired were supported by the record, and the counter-claim was therefore time-barred. The appeal was rejected on the limitation issue, and dismissal of the counter-claim was upheld. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:34:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461140 A money-recovery counter-claim was held to fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rather than Article 22 because the admitted facts showed a conscious payment made in 1994, not a deposit or security pending settlement. On that factual foundation, the claim could not be recharacterised to attract a different limitation article. The concurrent findings that limitation had expired were supported by the record, and the counter-claim was therefore time-barred. The appeal was rejected on the limitation issue, and dismissal of the counter-claim was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461140