The Plea of Limitation XVI: Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

As has been held in Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P., (1980) 3 SCC 719 every argumentative novelty does not undo a settled position of law.

Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1908 corresponds to Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963. Khan Bahadur Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prasad, (1962) 1 SCR 140 has an illuminating discussion.

An entry made in the books of accounts, including the balance sheet, can amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963 [Mahabir Cold Storage v. CIT, 1991 Supp (1) SCC; A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, (2002) 2 SCC 642]

Bengal Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, AIR 1962 Cal 115 held, an acknowledgement of liability that is made in a balance sheet can amount to an acknowledgement of debt.

Bengal Silk Mills has been referred to with approval in various other Judgments.  

– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal, [Civil Appeal No. 323 of 2021].

_____

Also see, Dena Bank (Bank of Baroda) v. C. Shivakumar Reddy, [Civil Appeal No. 1650 of 2020] decided on 04.08.2021 and SVG Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal, [Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2020] decided on 29.03.2022.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.