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

Report No. 89

37.71.Case law as to money in specie.- The expression "specific movable property" occurring in the article renders relevant a discussion of two cases of application of the article to money in specie (as against simple money claims). The first case is an Allahabad one, in which a company had instructed its bankers to make payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 50,000 in the sub-treasury and got the challan duly stamped and signed by the accountant and the treasurer.

The amount paid was, however, defalcated by the treasury officials, and was not credited to the account of the Collector of Central Excise. As a result, the company had to make payment of the excise duty for the second time. The company then filed a suit for recovery of the money from the State Government. The Allahabad High Court, inter alia, held1 that the suit was neither for certain "specific movable property" nor for the return of particular coins or currency notes (which the plaintiff had deposited) and, therefore, Articles 48 and 49 of the Act of 1908 did not apply to the case.

Holding that the suit was based on the liability of the Government for the misconduct of its servants, the High Court applied the residuary Article 120 of the Act of 1908, which gave a longer period of six years to the plaintiff.

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., AIR 1972 All 480.

37.72. In the second case,1 which is from Rajasthan, a person had deposited money with the municipal council for the construction of a septic tank and soak-pit for the disposal of waste water. On the failure of the Municipality to carry out the work, the plaintiff demanded the money from the Municipal Council, which refused the payment. The High Court observed that under Article 91(b), a suit for compensation for wrongfully detaining the movable property has to be instituted within three years from the date on which the detainee's possession became unlawful. The suit, filed within three years from the date when the Municipality refused to adjust the amount towards house tax, was in time.

The judgment has not pin-pointed the exact article applicable. Articles 91(b) and 55 (in addition to the residuary Article 113) of the Act of 1963 have been taken as the articles possibly of relevance.

1. Chandrabhan Bansilal v. Bikaner Municipality, AIR 1975 Raj 35.

37.73.No change needed.- In this state of the case-l.-which does not rule out the residuary artic.-we do not consider it necessary to amend the wording of Article 91..

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