9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation Period 2. Acknowledgement of Debt 3. Waiver and Estoppel 4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act Summary: 1. Limitation Period: The primary issue for determination was whether the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs contended that their suit was within limitation due to consent terms and orders in previous proceedings. However, the court found that the suit, filed on 5-12-1986, was barred by limitation, as the debts under the invoices dated between 22-2-1983 and 24-3-1983 became time-barred by April 1986. The court emphasized that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is the duty of the court to consider whether a suit is barred by limitation, even if no such defense is taken by the defendants. 2. Acknowledgement of Debt: The plaintiffs argued that the consent terms and subsequent consent order in the appeal constituted an acknowledgment of debt u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, which would extend the limitation period. The court held that the consent terms could not be considered an acknowledgment of debt, as they merely confirmed the original court's order and extended the time for depositing the amount and filing the suit. The court noted that for an acknowledgment to be valid under Section 18, it must be in writing and signed before the expiration of the prescribed period, which was not the case here. 3. Waiver and Estoppel: The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had waived their right to plead limitation and were estopped from doing so due to the consent terms. The court rejected this argument, stating that the consent terms did not constitute a waiver of the limitation defense. The court also cited legal precedents establishing that there can be no waiver of the limitation period, as the court has a duty to consider limitation issues regardless of the parties' actions. 4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The plaintiffs did not explicitly claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding. However, the court considered whether this section could apply. The court concluded that Section 14 was not applicable, as the previous company petition for winding up did not relate to the same matter in issue as the current suit for debt recovery. Additionally, the court found that the earlier proceedings were not dismissed due to a defect in jurisdiction or a similar cause. Conclusion: The court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, with no costs awarded to the defendants. The amount of Rs. 20,000 deposited by the defendants was ordered to be refunded after four weeks, along with any accrued interest.
|
