SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed  ||  SC: Properties Acquired by Karta are Presumed to be Joint Hindu Family Assets unless Proven Otherwise  ||  SC: Trial Courts Must Record that Free Legal Aid was Offered to Accused Before Witness Examination  ||  SC: State Government Employees Cannot Claim Dearness Allowance Twice a Year Unless Rules Allow  ||  P&H High Court: Anticipatory Bail on Settlement Can be Revoked if Compromise is Broken  ||  Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults can Choose Life Partners Without Societal or Parental Approval  ||  Cal HC: Excessive Palm Sweating Alone Cannot Render Candidate Medically Unfit for CAPF Appointment  ||  Del HC: Mother's Right to Education and Personal Growth Cannot be Restricted Due To Custody Disputes  ||  SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes    

Matthew and Others v. Sedman and Others - (21 May 2021)

While calculating limitation period in a midnight deadline case, there is complete undivided day following the expiry of deadline which has to be included in the same

Limitation

The Appellants are the present trustees of a Trust (the “Trust”). They replaced the Respondents. Further the Trust had a share in a company called Cattles plc, a listed company. In the year 2008, in the month of April the company published an annual report and rights issue prospectus containing misleading information. Trading in the shares of the listed company was suspended. Consequently in February, 2011, schemes of arrangement were approved in respect of Cattles plc and a subsidiary namely the Welcome Financial Services Limited (“Welcome”). Due to the misleading information in the annual report and the prospectus, the Trust has a claim against Cattles plc and Welcome under the schemes. However under the scheme of arrangement a valid claim could have been made upto midnight on Thursday 2nd June 2011. However the Respondents did not do the same.

The issue in this case was whether a cause of action accrues at or on the expiry of the midnight hour at the end of a day the following day counts towards the calculation of the limitation period

The Court in the present case unanimously dismissed the appeal and observed that in a midnight deadline case, there is a complete undivided day following the expiry of the deadline which has to be included when calculating the limitation period. The claim against Welcome was initiated out of such time.

Tags : MIDNIGHT DEADLINE   LIMITATION PERIOD  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved