Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1276 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTTime Limitation - Recovery of Arrears - Entitlement for suit claim - limitation for recovery of arrears of installments payable by a subscriber of a chit fund company would commence from the date of the first default in the payment of such installments or from the date of termination of the chit agreement? - HELD THAT:- The plea of the appellant is that Article 37 does not apply since the suit is not based either on a promissory note or on a bond. On that basis, they rely upon the residuary clause i.e., Clause 113. There again, the period of three years is to be reckoned from the date on which the right to sue has accrued. If the date on which the third consecutive default in payment of instalments is taken into account, the suit becomes barred by limitation even under that article. Though it is pleaded that the suit is not based upon promissory note, it is clear that a reference has been made in para 4 of the plaint to the agreement of guarantee dated 05-12-2000 as well as the promissory note of the same date, for a sum of Rs. 92,500/- executed by the respondents herein. Further, in the absence of any promissory note, and the guarantee from respondent Nos. 2 to 9, there would not have been any occasion for the appellant to implead at least respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The 1st respondent alone is party to Ex. A-1. In case, the suit was filed only on Ex. A-1, it ought to have been filed against the 1st respondent alone. The judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in Nanoo Sukumaran's case [1977 (6) TMI 108 - KERALA HIGH COURT] perused - Firstly, the judgment is in relation to an enactment of that State. Assuming that the provisions are in pari materia with the Chit Funds Act, we find it difficult to cull out any principle to the effect that the limitation for filing the suits for recovery of amount from a prized subscriber commences from the date on which the chit is concluded. In the instant case itself, the appellant made a mention in the paragraph pertaining to cause of action to 05-12-2000, the date on which the promissory note and the agreements of guarantee were executed and 10-04-2001, the date on which the appellant committed default. The second appeal dismissed.
|