Madras High Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Challenging Handing Over of Sceptre to Widow  ||  Mad. HC: Merely Smelling Alcohol in Breath Not Sufficient Ground to Attribute Contributory Negligence  ||  Del. HC: Central Govt.’s Circular Banning Sale and Breeding of 'Dangerous & Ferocious Dogs' Quashed  ||  Calcutta High Court: Notice Preventing Forest Dwellers from Entering Forest Lands Set Aside  ||  Del. HC: Proceed. Under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act Can Continue Parallelly as They are Complimentary  ||  Ori. HC: Proper Infrastructure and Manpower Must be Provided by State to Forensic Labs  ||  Bom. HC: Trampoline Park in Lonavla Restrained from Using Trademark or Character of Mr. Bean  ||  Allahabad HC: In Execution Proceedings, Challenge Cannot be Made to Arbitral Award u/s 47 of CPC  ||  Mad. HC: Basic Structure of Consti. & Democracy Demolishes When Electors Gratified During Election  ||  Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks    

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


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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved