Süper Ligin 27. hafta maçları so
As="" at="" the="" time="" of="" the="" loan="" no="" failure="" of="" the="" consi-="" deration="" upon="" which="" the="" loan="" of="" tho="" money="" and="" the="" promise="" to="" repay="" it="" with="" interest="" w'as="" made="" since="" the="" obligation="" of="" that="" promise="" was="" for="" some="" time="" observed,="" and="" it="" a})poars="" to="" them="" that="" the="" failure="" of="" consideration="" for="" the="" loan="" of="" tho="" money="" did="" not="" occur="" until="" 11th="" marcli="" 1918.”="" see="" also="" tho="" undermentioned="" case.
11, 15 Act done negligently lait boiKJstly — .Xrtielc appitc.s ...
The mere incurring of a x)ecuniary obligation in the shajie of a bond or promis- sory note is not a payment within the meaning of this Article.’
The question was raised but not decided as to wdiether a mistake can be taken to have “become known” to the plaintiff wlien he ought to have discovered it if lie used reasonable diligence.
Same as above, except for the slight change.
Their Lordships observed as follows : “It is important to consider how inconvenient it would be if a married woman was obliged to bring an action against her husband U])on such an instrument ; it would be full of danger to the happiness of married life ; and we think, upon the true construction of this settlement, she had a right of suit without (1873) 19 Sutb \V K 315 (319) : 2 Suther 823 (P C), Mirza Bedar Biikhi Mohammad Ali Bahadur v.
That in order that the mistake of a party may be a ground for relief, there must be no neglect on his part and that where there is negligence there is mistake such as will justify the grant of relief.
Same as above, except the slight chauge noted in Note 1.
As has been soon in Notes to Section 18 ante, negligence in pursuing means available for discovering the fraud will not, in this country, start limitation running before the date of the actual knowledge.
Banee Byeesoonnissa, a previous demand, and that she was not obliged to sue her husband immediately or in his lifetime,” The principle of the said decision was held applicable generally to all cases of dower debt.’
It has now l)ecn held by the tligli Courts ol Bomljay
In England the right of a X)erson defrauded to seek for relief would be deemed to have first accrued at and not before the time such fraud was or witli reasonable diligence might have been dis- covered.
A wife was held not obliged to make a demand even though she was living in separation.* But, if she did make a definite and unambiguous demand and the same was refused, it was held, also by the Privy Council, that time would begin to run from the date of such demand and refusal.
oY a light to an invention under the Patent Act, 1859,
- TO DECLARE FORGERY OF INSTRUMENT ISSUED 1423 under no obligation to sue for a declaration that it is a forgery.
Notes tliG date of the order, tliis Article will not apply.
A suit for negligence in this Article means a suit in respect of some negligent act or omission and the words that limitation shall run from the time when the neglect becomes known to tlie plaintiff moan that time will run from the time when the negligent act or omission becomes known to the plaintiff* and not from the time when he realizes or concludes that the act was negligent
Where a condition is apjiended to an obligation to pay, then Art.
45,000, and the plaintiff sued the defendant for recovery of the latter’s share of the loss which the plaintiff* had to pay, it was held by the same High Court that the obligation on which the suit was brought was the settlement in pursuance of the registered contract of partnership and that therefore the suit was governed by Article 116.
(1820) 21 R R 91 (90, 97) : 2 Bligh 391 : 2 Brod & B 165 (180).
Ordinarily, the knowledge of the negligence or misconduct of an agent can fairly be imputed to the jn’incipal from the date wdien he obtains the account book from the agent.
(1320) 2 Brod and B 165 (180) ; 2 Blig 391 : 21 B R 91, liorm v.
The “profits” referred to in this Article is not identical with “mesne profits” which is defined in Section 2 sub-section 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, as meaning “those profits which the person in wro7iQful 'possession actually received or might with ordmary diligence have received therefrom” etc.
Article, if applies where obligee has an option to demand payment.
Article 90 it was held by the Allahabad High Court that constructive notice of Notes the negligence of the agent was sufficient in the circumstances of that 4 — 5 case.