SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1926 Supreme(All) 280

PULLAN
Jugal Kishore – Appellant
Versus
T. Caul – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pullan, J. - The question raised in this second appeal is whether a letter sent by the defendant in the suit to the plaintiff on the 6th November 1920, amounts to an acknowledgment to save limitation u/s 19 of the Limitation Act. It appears that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with motor accessories from time to time and the greater part of the account was settled in June 1920. After that a dispute arose between' the parties, the defendant who is a doctor, refusing to pay the balance of the bill until his professional fees were settled. This suit was not brought until the 6th November 1923, and unless that letter is an acknowledgment the suit will be beyond time. The terms of this letter are as follows:

I do not understand why you persist in sending me bills when you yourself owe me Rs. 528. Please deduct your bill from the money you owe me and send the balance of Rs. 181-8-0 at your earliest. It will oblige. Don't send any more bills please.

2. Now an acknowledgment for the purposes of Section 19 of the Limitation Act must be an acknowledgment of liability and this letter expressly denies any liability. It may admit that the items of the bill are correct though it does

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top