9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendants. In the facts and circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that there was an acknowledgement on the part of the defendants, in view of the guarantee furnished by the latter, which according to them was a continuing guarantee and extended the period of limitation on account of acknowledgement of debt, is fallacious and devoid of merits. There admittedly is no other acknowledgement of debt in writing by the defendants apart from this unsupported argument of “continuous guarantee” set up by the appellant. Thus, the provision of Section 19 of the said Act, are not attracted to the facts of the present case. - RFA 589/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2016 - MR SIDDHARTH MRIDUL J. Appellant Through: Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be expedient to consider the provision of Section 19 of the said Act:- 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy. Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgement of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. Explanation . For the purpose of this section, -- (a) Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und the loan amount but defendants avoided to pay back the same on one pretext or the other. As per statement of account, a sum of ₹ 3,80,366 /-(Rupees Three Lacs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Six) was due as on 16.06.2014. Demand notice dated 24.06.2014 was sent to the defendants calling upon them to repay the amount due, but of no avail. 2. Perusal of averments of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has sought to recover the loan amount advanced in the year 2000 in two installments and last installment was released to the defendants on 23.12.2000. Documents such as loan agreement, disbursement slip etc. have been filed on record. Limitation for recovery of loan amount is three years. But there is nothing on record to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement of debt, is fallacious and devoid of merits. There admittedly is no other acknowledgement of debt in writing by the defendants apart from this unsupported argument of continuous guarantee set up by the appellant. Thus, the provision of Section 19 of the said Act, are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 9. The suit being CS No.109/2015 titled M/s National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation vs. Andhra Pradesh Mahila Welfare Society Ors. , instituted on behalf of the appellant was patently barred by time in view of the findings of the trial court, which have not been controverted on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, its dismissal as being barred by limitation cannot be found fault with. 10. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
