TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Advocate) For the Respondent : (By D.M.S. Associates, Shri. Devaraj, Advocate) JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The appellant was the defendant before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The suit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be filed. The suit was resisted by the defendants who denied the very execution of the agreement. It was also contended that in any event the suit was barred by limitation since the cause of action arose immediately on the repeal of the fragmentation Act in the year 1991 and the suit having been filed in the year 2001 the same was barred by limitation. The trial court dismissed the suit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....file a suit for specific did not commence from the date of repeal of the Fragmentation Act, notwithstanding the agreement. The reason is they were then contemplating an uncertain event, namely the repeal of the Act. For time to run -it has been held that the refusal to perform upon notice, is relevant. In the instant case though it is contended that there were repeated demands by the plaintiff, ca....