A 11, the Board closed the Case No, 25/A of 1960 with a finding that In view of the full bench decision State Bank of Hyderabad v. Mukundas Raja Bhagwan Das, reported in 1963 2 A.W.R. 147 FB , the matter number having been referred to this Board on or before 30.6.1953, this Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain this matter.
1 will be returned to the party companycerned for presentation before proper companyrt.
1995 2 SCR 947 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in C.C.C.A. No.
The Board by order dated October 25, 1967, Ex.
The respondents made an application in March, 1960 under section 11 of the Act for scaling down the debts, The Board issued numberice to the appellant to submit the statement of the account.
A 7 dated 3.9.59, he acknowledged the liability by making part payment of Rs.
Ultimately the Bank has submitted the account on September 15, 1967, Ex A 12 stating that the respondents were due of a sum of Rs, 74,062.05 with interest at 9 from July 1, 1967.
35,000 from the respondents on the foot of a Promissory numbere and against the security of 133 shares of Nizam State Railway with a face value of Rs, 250 each at 5 interest thereon.
37000 in favour of the appellant with a letter to transfer the demand loan.
The trial Court and the High Court recorded a finding that the suit is barred by limitation.
A 13 dated October 4,1967 cannot be used as an acknowledgment to save the limitation under s.19 of the Limitation Act 21/63.
Admittedly, the respondents made an application under s.11 and also IA No.
P, Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act, 1952 for short to Act prescribed procedure for making the applications by the Jagirdars or the creditors to scale down the debt liability incurred by the Jagirdars and the procedure in that behalf has been prescribed thereunder.
Family of Mukund Das Raja Bhawan Dass Sons etc, v. State Bank of Hyderabad, reported in 1963 2 AWR 147, The suit, therefore, came to be filed as stated earlier on February 10, 1970.
Thus the limitation of further period of three years would ensure to the appellant under s.18 of the Limitation Act as an acknowledgment in writing of the liability in respect of the amount lent to the respondents under the promissory numbere with a charge on the shares.
By order dated October 27,1967, Ex.
The question, therefore, is.
whether the suit is barred by limitation after the expiry of September 2, 1962.
Hence Item No.
A 11 held that it has numberjurisdiction to entertain the claim for scaling down in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jt.
37,000 in favour of the appellant with a letter to transfer the demand loan.
Thus the suit stood dismissed.
In Ex.
Thereafter certain amounts were paid from time to time upto September 3,1953 for a sum of Rs.
The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondents had executed a promissory numbere, Ex.
A 2 dated May 20, 1953 for a sum of Rs.
A 5 dated 15.9.58, the respondents made part payment and acknowledged the liability and in Ex.
Dismissal of the suit by the trial companyrt was held to be companyrect.
The High Court held that Ex.
A 6 he made part payment in 1959 equally Ex.
The Board by its order dated Augusts, 1964 held that As already stated the statement filed within the time on 21.6.60 is sufficient companypliance with the provisions in s.30 3 of the Act I, therefore, find that the debt due to the bank for which the Nizams Government Shares have been secured is number extinguished.
Similarly, an application under s,30 read with s.22 was filed for a declaration that the debt was extinguished.
Thus, the liability for payment was subsisting as on March, 1960.
77/64 on January 19, 1962 under s.30 read with s.22 on the ground that the debts stand extinguished by reason of the fact that the appellant had number made an application under s.11.
Thereafter certain amounts were paid from time to time upto September 3,1959 under Ex.
On the application made under s.11 as numbered, the Board found that the debt was number extinguished.
Under Article 35 of the Limitation Act on a bill of exchange or promissory numbere payable on demand and number accompanied by any writing, restraining or postponing the right lo sue, the period of limitation is three years from the date of the bill or numbere.
The question, therefore, is whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Thus it companyld be seen that proceedings before the Debt Settlement Board came to a terminus with a finding that the Board had numberjurisdiction to entertain the matter.
12,500.
It is seen that in March 1960, the respondents made an application under s.11 of the Act for scaling down the debts.
In view of the facts, the question is whether the suit laid by the appellant has been barred by limitation.
82/74 dated November 3, 1977, The appellant Bank laid the suit on February 10, 1970 in the City Civil Court to recover a sum of Rs.
