Ramasami Vs. Muttusami and anr.

limitation act - act xv of 1877, section 19, schedule ii, articles 57, 115--date when money becomes due--acknowledment in holograph will unsigned. - central excise act, 1944.[c.a. no. 1/1944]. section 11: [p. santhasivam, a. kulasekaran & s. tamilvanan, jj] possession of property taken by bank under the securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002 - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the s..r.f.a.e.s.i. act, it would be a secured creditor and would have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e., tax, dues etc (crows debts) get priority over ordinary debts. only when there is a specific provision in the statute claiming first charge over the property, the crowns debt is entitled to have priority over the claim of others. in the absence of such specific provision in the central excise act as well as in customs act claim of secured creditor will prevail over crowns debts. -- securities & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]. section 13: possession of property taken by bank under the act - claim towards tax due priority - held, where the bank took possession of the property under section 13 of the act, it would be a secured creditor and would have precedence over crowns debt namely excise department in instant case, in the absence of specific provision of first charge in central excise act as well as customs act. generally, the dues to government i.e., tax, dues etc (crows debts) get priority over ordinary debts. only when there is a specific provision in the statute claiming first charge over the property, the crowns debt is entitled to have priority over the claim of others. in the absence of such specific..........the suit is not barred. we agree with the decision of the calcutta high court in rameshwar mandal v. ram chand roy i.l.r. 10 cal. 1033, that such a suit will fall under article 115 [article 115: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ description of suit. | period of | time from which period begins to run. | limitation. | ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ for compensation for the breach | three years ... | when the contract is broken, or of any contract, expess or implied, | | (where there are successive breaches) not in writing regstered and not | | when the breach in repect which herein specially provided for. | | the suit is instituted occurs, or (where | | the breach is continuing) when it | | ceases.] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [article 57: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ for money payable for money | theree years... | when the loang is made.] lent. | | _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________3. the decree of the learned judge must, therefore, be reversed and that of the district judge restored, but as this point was not taken before we shall make no order as to costs in this court. the plaintiff is entitled to other costs.