INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD. versus JAMES MANTOSH & ANR.

INDIA ELECTRIC WORKS LTD. versus JAMES MANTOSH & ANR.

Plaintiff is entitled to deduct the period during which the earlier suit was prosecuted, as the claim had been included in the previous suit which was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence; the High Court's inability to grant future damages was an 'other cause of a like nature' within Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, allowing the benefit of exclusion of time from the limitation period.

Parties
Appellant: India Electric Works Ltd.; Respondent: James Mantosh & Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 1970
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court—appeal From Judgment and Decree of the Calcutta High Court (appeal From Original Decree No. 306 of 1959, Dated April 11, 1963)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, 'other Cause of a Like Nature' Under Limitation, Future Mesne Profits, Deduction of Litigation Period From Limitation Period, Money Suits
Limitation Law Civil Procedure Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 'other Cause of a Like Nature' Under Limitation Future Mesne Profits Deduction of Litigation Period From Limitation Period Money Suits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

India Electric Works Ltd.

Appellant

James Mantosh & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court—appeal From Judgment and Decree of the Calcutta High Court (appeal From Original Decree No. 306 of 1959, Dated April 11, 1963)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to deduct the time during which an earlier suit was pending when computing limitation in the present suit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
  2. 2 Whether the inability to grant relief for future mesne profits in the earlier pure money suit was a defect allowing invocation of Section 14(1)'s 'other cause of a like nature.'

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff is entitled to deduct the period during which the earlier suit was prosecuted, as the claim had been included in the previous suit which was prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence; the High Court's inability to grant future damages was an 'other cause of a like nature' within Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, allowing the benefit of exclusion of time from the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.