1999 (2) TMI 693 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the suit is barred by limitation, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Suit Barred by Limitation
The plaintiff, a contractor, supplied goods to the defendants on 16-11-1972. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to pay the amount due, and the suit was filed on 17-11-1976. The defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation as it should have been filed within three years from the date of supply. The plaintiff contended that the limitation period starts from the date of knowledge of fraud committed by the defendants, which was informed on 7-10-1976. However, the court held that the plaintiff was aware that the amount was not paid by the defendants, and even after being informed about the misappropriation on 7-10-1976, the suit was filed after the limitation period. The court cited various legal precedents to establish that the plaintiff failed to show that fraud kept them from knowing their right to sue within the limitation period. Therefore, the court concluded that the suit was indeed barred by limitation.

Issue 2: Acknowledgment of Liability
The plaintiff argued that certain letters and communications constituted acknowledgments of liability by the defendants, thus extending the limitation period. However, the court found that none of the documents provided by the plaintiff established a clear acknowledgment of liability by the defendants within the prescribed period. The court emphasized that for an acknowledgment of liability to be valid, it must be made in writing and signed by the party against whom the claim is made. The court referred to legal principles and cases to support its conclusion that the communications between the parties did not constitute a valid acknowledgment of liability. Therefore, the court held that the limitation period ran from the date of supply, and the suit was time-barred.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decision that the suit was barred by limitation. No costs were awarded in this matter.