9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the expression "date fixed" in Article 54 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963.
Summary: The Supreme Court addressed a reference regarding the interpretation of the term "date" in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court noted that various High Courts had differing views on whether the date should be definitively fixed or inferred from surrounding circumstances. The Court referred to previous cases such as Ramzan v. Hussaini and Tarlok Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal for guidance. The Court emphasized the importance of a fixed and definite date for performance, stating that the expression "date fixed for performance" implies a specific date in the calendar. The Court concluded that the term "date" in Article 54 signifies a specified date and not one to be inferred from other circumstances. The matter was referred back to the Division Bench for further consideration. In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the term "date fixed" in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, emphasizing the need for a specific and definite date for performance. The Court's decision provides guidance on establishing the date of performance and the plaintiff's notice of refusal, highlighting the importance of a clear and fixed timeline in legal matters.
|
