Back
GOUTAM BHADURI, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL
Indu Patni W/o Late Sohanlal Patni – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kishore S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated11-9-2017 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, in civil suit No.680-B/2013 whereby the money suit was decreed forRs.11.00 lacs in favour of the plaintiff. The present appeal is by the defendant.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit on 9-4-2013 claiming Rs.11.00 lacs from the appellant/defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that prior to 5-6 years from the date of filing of the suit, a demand of Rs.15.00 lacs towards loan was made by the appellant/defendant. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.15.00 lacs was given by the plaintiff to the defendant with a promise that it would be returned in 2-3 years. The plaintiff further pleaded that no receipts were taken for such grant of loan, as the relationship between them was cordial like brother and sister. The plaintiff also pleaded that when the amount was not returned, a demand was made in the year 2010 and the defendant promised to return the same during the month of March, 2010. Having not returned the same till March, 2010 again demand was made. At that point of time the defendant stated
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act in relation to the recovery of a time-barred debt and the requiremen....
A written acknowledgment of debt as a promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act can validate a recovery claim even if time-barred, thus distinguishing it from an acknowledgment un....
An acknowledgment of payment must contain the debtor's signature to extend the limitation period; otherwise, the suit is barred by limitation.
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.
The court found that acknowledgments made by the defendant constituted a fresh promise to pay, creating a new cause of action and rendering the suit not barred by limitation. The court also held that....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit filed beyond the limitation period as per Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for seeking recovery of a loan where no time period....
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
