Bangalore sex chat number 2013
As per the said clause the starting date is the date of “the receipt of the said notice”. The defendant initiated third party proceedings against the respondent insurance company, alleging the company’s liability to indemnify him under an instrument called a temporary cover note admittedly issued by the insurance company on 2/12/1959.Once it starts, the offence is completed on the failure to pay the amount within 15 days therefrom. 1, 5 In that case, under a special Act, a railway company was empowered to take lands compulsorily for the purpose of its undertaking, and the powers of the company for this purpose were to cease after the expiration of three years from the passing of the Act. On 9/8/1902 the railway company gave notice to the plaintiffs to treat for the purchase of lands belonging to them which were scheduled in the special Act. 68, where Sir William Grant broke away from the line of cases supporting the view that there was a general rule that in cases where time is to run from the doing of an act or the happening of an event the first day is always to be included in the computation of the time. The insurance company inter alia contended that the policy had expired before the accident happened. On appeal the insurance company reiterated that the cover note issued by the insurance company contained the expression ‘fifteen days from the date of commencement of policy’.
The fallacy of the above reasoning is that it erases the starting date of the period of 15 days envisaged in clause (c). The rule is now well established that where a particular time is given, from a certain date, within which an act is to be done, the day of the date is to be excluded.”  1 All E. He issued his writ in this action claiming damages for personal injuries.Cause of action would arise if the offence is committed.Thus, it was held that since the fax was received on 11/6/1996, the period of 15 days for making payment expired on 26/6/1996.The complainant sent a notice to the accused by fax on 11/6/1996. 12/6/1996 the complainant also sent the same notice by registered post which was served on the accused on 25/6/1996. Cognizance of the offence was taken and process was issued.On 8/8/1996 the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N. Process was quashed by the Magistrate on the grounds urged by the accused. The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and restored the complaint. The only point which was urged before this Court was that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence after the expiry of 30 days from the date of cause of action. This Court held that the notice envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 transmitted by fax would be in compliance with the legal requirement. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.
‘15/10/1995’ has to be included in the period of limitation and thus the complaint was barred by time. Referring to several English decisions on the point, this Court observed that the principle of excluding the day from which the period is to be reckoned is incorporated in Section 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U. Section 138(b) provides that the payee must make a demand of the amount due to him within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank.
Such exclusion has been held to be against the law in SIL Import USA. The statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act 55 of 2002 confirms the legal position that the N. Act being a special statute, the Limitation Act is not applicable to it.
Counsel further submitted that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the N. Counsel submitted that the judgment of this Court on the Arbitration Act is not applicable to this case because Section 43 of the Arbitration Act specifically makes the Limitation Act applicable to arbitrations.
Counsel submitted that in view of the above, it is evident that Saketh does not lay down the correct law.
It is SIL Import USA which correctly analyses the provisions of law and lays down the law.
The accused, therefore, filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) for quashing the process issued by the learned Magistrate. This Court observed that this principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 138(c) uses the words ‘within 15 days of the receipt of notice’.