Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 89

Articles 1 to 5: Suits relating to accounts

17. No changes are recommended in Articles 1 to 5 (Chapter 31).

Articles 6 to 55: Suits on contracts

18. Article 7 (suit for wages not otherwise expressly provided for) should be amended as unde.-

(a) where the suit is for relief consequential on the setting aside of an order of dismissal or removal (from service), the starting point for limitation should be the date when the dismissal or removal (from service) is set aside (paragraph 32.8).

(b) an Explanation should be added to provide that "wages" includes salary and pension (paragraph 32.8. read with paragraph 32.3).

19. Articles 10 and 11 (certain suits against carriers of goods for compensation) should be revised as recommended in detail (paragraph 32.17).

20. A new Article 22A should be inserted to deal specifically with a suit for money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on the expiry of a stipulated period, including the money of a customer in the hands of his banker so payable. The time limit should be 3 years, to be computed from the date of expiry of the stipulated period (paragraph 32.35).

Articles 56 to 58: Suits relating to declarations

21. In Article 57 (the general article relating to suits to obtain declaration about invalidity, etc. of an adoption), the first column should be confined to suits to obtain such a declaration where no further relief is sought (paragraph 33.29).

22. Article 58 (suit to obtain any other declaration) should also be confined to a suit in which the plaintiff does not seek further relief (paragraph 33.35).

Articles 59-60: Suits relating to decrees and instruments

23. As regards Article 60 (suit to set aside at answer of property made by the guardian of a ward), in order to resolve the controversy as to the coverage by the article of a de facto guardian, attention has been drawn to the 83rd Report of the Law Commission on the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In paragraph 4.13 of that Report a recommendation has been made for adding to section 4(2) of that Act, a suitable Explanation which will make it clear that a de facto guardian is included within the definition of "guardian" in that Act. Implementation of this recommendation is expected to eliminate the controversy on the subject in relation to, the Limitation Act also (paragraph 34.6).

Articles 61 to 67: Suits to immovable property

24. No changes are recommended in Articles 61 to 67 (Chapter 35).

Articles 68 to 71: Suits relating to movable property

25. No changes are recommended in Articles 68 to 71 (Chapter 36).

Articles 72 to 91: Suits relating to tort

26. In regard to Article 72 (suit for compensation for doing or omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being), the recommendation made by the Law Commission in its 3rd Report (Report on the Limitation Act, 1908) to increase the period of limitation from one year to three years is re-iterated (paragraph 37.6).

27. Article 74 (suit for compensation for a malicious prosecution) should be amended in regard to the starting point of the period of limitation. At present, the starting point is expressed as unde.-

"When the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated."

The recommendation made is to insert the word "finally" before the word "terminated" (paragraph 37.17).

28. Article 75 (suit for compensation for libel) and Article 76 (suit for compensation for slander) should be replaced by one single articles, providing a time limit of one year for a suit for compensation for defamation. The starting point should.-"when the defamatory statement is published, or where the defamatory statement is not published in a permanent form, when it comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff" (paragraph 37.26).

29. Article 77 (suit for compensation for loss of service occasioned by the seduction of the plaintiff's servant or daughter) should be revised as under; so as to eliminate the element of loss of servic.-

"77. For compensation for seduction:

One year.

When the seduction occurs." (paragraphs 37-33).

30. Article 78, which prescribes a period of limitation of one year for a suit "for compensation for inducing a person to break a contract with the plaintiff," should be amended by adding the word "wrongfully" before the words "inducing a person to break a contract with the plaintiff" (paragraph 37.37).

31. Article 79 (suit for compensation for illegal, irregular and excessive distress) should be amended so as to alter the starting point of limitation. At present the starling point is the date of the distress. This should be revised so as to substitute the date of release of the distress (paragraph 37.43).

32. Article 80 (suit for compensation for wrongful seizure of movable property under legal process) should be revised so as to alter the starting point of limitation. At present, the starting point is the date of the seizure. This should be revised so as to substitute the date of release from the seizure (paragraph 37.43).

33. Articles 81 to 83 (certain suits under the Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855 and the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855) may be examined when the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is taken up for revision (paragraph 37.50).

34. Article 88 (suit for compensation for infringing copyright or any other exclusive privilege), which provides a time limit of three years; to be computed from the date of the infringement, should be revised in two directions:

(i) In the first place, the nature of the suit (in the first column of the article) should be described as a suit "for compensation for infringing copyright or right to other intellectual property, or any other exclusive privilege, or for restraining such infringement".

(ii) Secondly, the period of limitation (three years) should be counted not from the date of the infringement (as at present), but from the date when the infringement first becomes known to the plaintiff (paragraph 37.64).

35. Article 90 (suit for compensation for injury caused by an injunction wrongfully obtained) should be enlarged so as to cover compensation for injury caused by an attachment wrongfully obtained (paragraph 37.68).

Articles 92 to 96: Suits relating to trusts and trust property

36. Articles 94, 95 and 96 (suits to set aside a transfer of property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment made by a manager thereof for a valuable consideration and suits by such a manager to recover possession of such property which has been transferred by a previous manager for valuable consideration) should be extended so as to cover Sikh and Jain endowments (paragraphs 38.8 and 38.11).

The Limitation Act, 1963 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys