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

1938 Supreme(All) 120

BENNET
Puran Chand – Appellant
Versus
Abdullah – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Bennet, Ag. C.J.

1. This is a reference by the Small Cause Court Judge of Saharanpur of the following point for the decision of this Court:

Whether an endorsement; of payment made at the back of a pro-note more than three years after its execution but during the close holidays of the Civil Courts which had begun prior to the completion of three years period gives a fresh start of limitation u/s 20 read with Section 4, Limitation Act?

2. The reference was laid before a Bench of two Judges and those Judges decided on 9th August 1937 that there were conflicting rulings on the point:

Accordingly we direct that this case be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice with the request that he be pleased to constitute such a Bench (a larger Bench) for the decision of the question involved in the reference.

3. Under the High Court Rules Ch. 1, Rule 3-A, a Bench was constituted of three Judges by order of 6th September 1937. Before that Bench assembled, a similar point of limitation had been the subject of a decision by a Full Bench which is reported in L. Shanker Lal and Another Vs. Rana Lal Singh and Another . This decision was made on 5th January 1938, and reported in February. The lear

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