Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA
Tippeswamy Silk And Cotton, Handloom Product, Represented By Its Proprietor Sri Tippaiah. Since Dead By Lr’s.- Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, (W/o. Tippaiah) – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Limited, (Government Of Karnataka Undertaking), Represented By Its Managing Director – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the transactional agreement (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' denial of liability (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. issues framed by the trial court (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. trial court's findings on plaintiff's evidence (Para 9) |
| 5. arguments of defendants' counsel (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. defendants' acknowledgment of liability (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. requisites of valid acknowledgment (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. limitation considerations regarding acknowledgments (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. conclusion and dismissal of appeal (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
The present first appeal by the defendants arising out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2011 in O.S. No.5919/2002 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby, the money suit was decreed with cost holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.1,79,141/- together with interest @ 16.5% on Rs.1,47,962/- from the date of the suit till the payment.
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Suit instituted for recovery of Rs.1,79,141/- with future interest @ 16.5% p.a. The plaintiff i
Acknowledgment of a debt in writing interrupts the limitation period allowing a fresh period from the acknowledgment date, making the suit valid despite initial time lapse.
Suit barred by limitation even with acknowledgement under Section 18 if filed beyond three years; parties bound by trial court concessions.
The acknowledgment of debt for limitation purposes must be explicit, written, and made before the expiration of the limitation period; mere disputes do not suffice.
Adjustment of alleged payment does not constitute acknowledgment under the Limitation Act, barring recovery of debt.
The court established that the dishonor of cheques and subsequent notice can affect the limitation period for filing a recovery suit under the Limitation Act.
The rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation should be based on the allegations in the plaint and should be decided after trial and not at the threshold.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a promise made in writing and signed to pay a time-barred debt is valid and enforceable under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
