Skip to main content

When once the period of limitation begins to run subsequent, disability has no affect.

"When once the period of limitation begins to run subsequent, disability has no affect."


The phrase "When once the period of limitation begins to run subsequent, disability has no effect" refers to the principle in the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs the time limits within which legal actions must be initiated. This principle is crucial in ensuring that claims are made within a reasonable time frame, promoting legal certainty and fairness.

Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is the time within which a party must file a lawsuit. Once this period begins, it continues to run regardless of any subsequent disability or incapacity that may affect the claimant. Disability, in this context, refers to conditions such as minority, insanity, or idiocy.

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that if a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor, insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased. However, once the limitation period has started, any subsequent disability does not stop or extend the running of the limitation period.

For example, if a person becomes insane after the limitation period has already started, this subsequent insanity does not pause or extend the limitation period. The rationale behind this rule is to prevent indefinite delays in the administration of justice and to protect defendants from stale claims.

In summary, the Limitation Act, 1963, ensures that once the clock starts ticking on the limitation period, it continues to run irrespective of any subsequent disabilities that may affect the claimant, thereby maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the legal process.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

Theories of Punishment Punishment in law serves multiple purposes, and the rationale behind these punishments can be understood through different theories of punishment. These theories form the foundation for justifying punishment and help in shaping law s and sentencing policies. Here’s a detailed explanation of each theory with examples: 1. Deterrent Theory The deterrent theory focuses on preventing crime by imposing severe punishments to create fear among people. The idea is that potential offenders will refrain from committing crimes if they fear punishment. Example : The death penalty or long-term imprisonment for serious offenses like murder or terrorism acts as a deterrent for those considering committing such crimes. 2. Retributive Theory This theory is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye" or giving the offender what they deserve. It focuses on vengeance or moral satisfaction, ensuring the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The goal is not to...
Post a Comment
Read more

Companies act ,2013

Companies Act, 2013 Meaning and Nature of a Company with Emphasis on its Advantages 1. Meaning of a Company : A company is a legal entity formed by a group of individuals to engage in and operate a business commercial or industrial enterprise. It is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 in India. According to Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, "Company means a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law." Lord Justice Lindley : "A company is an association of many persons who contribute money or money's worth to a common stock and employ it for a common purpose. The common stock so contributed is denoted in money and is the capital of the company." A company is an artificial person created by law. It has a separate legal identity distinct from its members. It can enter into contracts, own property, sue, and be sued in its own name. 2. Nature of a Company : The nature of a company can be understood through its key ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915). Section 53 - Fradulent transfer

Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another, 43 I.A. 151 (P.C. 1915).  This citation indicates that the case was decided by the Privy Council (P.C.) in 1915, and reported in volume 43 of the Indian Appeals (I.A.), starting from page 151.  The case of Musahar Sahu and Another v. Lala Hakim Lal and Another was a dispute over the validity of two conveyances of land executed by a debtor, Kishun Benode, to his relatives, Kamta Prashad and Hakim Lal, on 2nd September 1901. The plaintiff, Musahar Sahu, was a creditor of Kishun Benode who had obtained a judgment against him on 5th December 1901. The plaintiff sought to set aside the conveyances on the ground that they were made with intent to defeat or delay his claim, under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The courts gave different verdicts on the two conveyances. The first conveyance, in favour of Kamta Prashad, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, as it was found to be without consi...
Post a Comment
Read more