M. Somasundaram Chetty and Co. Through their Authorised Agent, W.T. Tiruvenkatachari Vs. P. Rangasami Iyangar and anr. - Court Judgment
|Judge||John Wallis, C.J. and ;Seshagiri Aiyar, J.|
|Appellant||M. Somasundaram Chetty and Co. Through their Authorised Agent, W.T. Tiruvenkatachari|
|Respondent||P. Rangasami Iyangar and anr.|
|Cases Referred||Kuldip Dube v. Mahant Dube|
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 20 - suit based on award. - .....on a contract. as observed in the latter case, it operates to merge and extinguish all claims embraced in the submission, and gives rise to a fresh cause of action, which in the present case is governed by article 120 of the 1st schedule of thes indian limitation act as there is no other article applicable. kuldip dube v. mahant dube 11 ind. cas. 705 : 34 a.p 43 : 8 a.l.j. 1138, is to the same effect.2. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
1. We think the learned. Judge was right and that the suit, being, based on an award, is not governed, as con-, tended, either by Articles 53, Article 113 or. Article 115 of the 1st Schedule to the Indian, Limitation Act. As held in Sornavalli Ammal v. Muthayya Sastrigal 23 M.P 593 : 10 M.L.J. 208, and in Bhajahari Saha Banikya v. Behary Lal Basak 33 C.P 881 : 4 C.L.J. 162, a suit on an award cannot be considered to be a suit on a contract. As observed in the latter case, it operates to merge and extinguish all claims embraced in the submission, and gives rise to a fresh cause of action, which in the present case is governed by Article 120 of the 1st Schedule of thes Indian Limitation Act as there is no other Article applicable. Kuldip Dube v. Mahant Dube 11 Ind. Cas. 705 : 34 A.P 43 : 8 A.L.J. 1138, is to the same effect.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.