Query on limitation.

Skeptical optimist (Querist) 27 February 2015 This query is : Resolved
My ex-colleague closed account with India based foreign bank within a year of opening it, attracting penalty. The account closure happened 3.5 years back (in Aug'11). However while final settlement, bank debited Rs. X in excess of penalty. He noticed this only 2 months back in Dec'14. On approaching bank, it "verbally" accepted its mistake, but said they will not entertain request for refund of Rs. X because account closure happened way back . He sent minutes of this discussion (by email) to concerned bank official in Dec'14 (minutes mentioned bank accepting its mistake). Bank did not contest this minutes by reply mail/letter till date. Also, in response to his letter to bank last week, bank replied on its letterhead saying: matter is too old to be considered (bank did not accept its mistake in this letter, though). Can 'this letter', and 'minutes of meeting email' together be considered 'fresh cause of action'; so as to overcome inadmissibility arising on ground of limitation act?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

R.K Nanda (Expert) 27 February 2015
yes, it can be considered as fresh cause of action.

Guest (Expert) 27 February 2015
I endorse the views of Shri R.K. Nanda.

ajay sethi (Expert) 27 February 2015
bank did not accept its liability to make payment . claim is barred by limitation

Skeptical optimist (Querist) 27 February 2015
Dear experts, I am confused.

1. Can not 'minutes of meeting email' written by ex-colleague to the bank which mentioned bank accepting its mistake (and bank formally did not disown these minutes by reply letter / email rejoinder) be of any help?

2. Just Devil's advocate argument: for matter to be time barred, bank should have simply sat quiet rather than sending reply letter (which termed matter time-barred). The matter was otherwise time-barred, anyway. Does not fresh letter amount to re-looking / re-considering the matter, and hence qualify as fresh cause of action?

Please advise.

Thanks.

Skeptical optimist (Querist) 03 March 2015
Dear Experts, This has turned out tricky issue. I received PMs stating, this falling under category of 'Continuous Cause of Action'.

Thanks to this forum, and gratitude to you for your prompt advice (as always).

Skeptical optimist (Querist) 03 March 2015
Experts would be aware about the below, still I am sharing it in larger interest.

While exploration, I have come across a landmark case on 'condonation of time-barred cause of action' as under.

State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005.
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 484 of 2005