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

1960 Supreme(MP) 292

H.R.KRISHNAN
GORILAL BALDEODAS – Appellant
Versus
RAMJEELAL BHURALAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.A.Chitale, S.D.SANGHI

H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the first appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial Court allowing the plaintiff's suit for the principal of a loan of Rs. 1000/-and interest at a rate lower than the one claimed. The appellate Court held that the suit of the plaintiff was time-barred; because the payment by a cheque in the handwriting of the borrower, is not an acknowledgement for the purposes of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, and does not give a fresh term of limitation, unless the cheque is honoured and the money is realised. As in this case the cheque concerned was not honoured, limitation was not saved under Section 20 and the plaintiff's suit stood time-barred. The appellate Court did not consider whether the plaintiff could have been granted any relief on the fact of the cheque itself being dishonoured; the plaintiff himself had not made that prayer in so many words. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are the following: It is common ground that the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 1000/- in cash on 11-6-1952. There was a receipt and interest was to be at one per cent. On 10-7-1953 the defendant passed a cheque for one thou











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