Bombay HC Conducts Emergency Hearing from CJ’s Residence as Court Staff Deployed for Elections  ||  Madras HC: Preventive Detention Laws are Draconian, Cannot be Used to Curb Dissent or Settle Politics  ||  HP HC: Mere Interest in a Project Cannot Justify Impleading a Non-Signatory in Arbitration  ||  J&K&L HC: Women Accused in Non-Bailable Offences Form a Distinct Class Beyond Sec 437 CrPC Rigour  ||  Bombay HC Restores IMAX’s Enforcement of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Applying Res Judicata  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case    

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