9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the letter (Ex. 1) amounted to an acknowledgement. 2. Whether the letter (Ex. 1) was an acknowledgement by the corporation. 3. Whether Subramanyam had the authority, express or implied, to acknowledge liability on behalf of the corporation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the letter (Ex. 1) amounted to an acknowledgement: The court examined whether the letter (Ex. 1) written by Subramanyam on behalf of the corporation constituted an acknowledgement of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The court noted that an acknowledgement must relate to a subsisting liability and indicate the existence of a jural relationship between the parties, such as debtor and creditor. The court found that the letter (Ex. 1) and the accompanying statement of account, which showed a balance of Rs. 1,07,447-13-11 due to the appellant-company, constituted an acknowledgement of a subsisting liability. The court emphasized that the letter and the statement were clear indications of the corporation's recognition of its debt to the appellant-company, thus fulfilling the requirements of Section 19(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908. 2. Whether the letter (Ex. 1) was an acknowledgement by the corporation: The court addressed the argument that the letter (Ex. 1) should be treated as an acknowledgement by the corporation itself, given that it was written by Subramanyam, the corporation's Secretary-cum-Chief Accountant. The court rejected this argument, noting that the appellant-company had not raised this plea in the plaint or during the trial or appellate stages. The court held that the letter (Ex. 1) should be considered in the context of the ongoing correspondence and reconciliation of accounts between the parties. The court concluded that the letter (Ex. 1) did amount to an acknowledgement of liability by the corporation, as it was written on behalf of the corporation and indicated a subsisting liability. 3. Whether Subramanyam had the authority, express or implied, to acknowledge liability on behalf of the corporation: The court examined whether Subramanyam had the authority to acknowledge liability on behalf of the corporation. The court noted that Subramanyam, as the Secretary-cum-Chief Accountant, was involved in the reconciliation of accounts and had the authority to scrutinize and settle various items claimed by the appellant-company. The court found that Subramanyam had implied authority to make acknowledgements on behalf of the corporation, as he was authorized to finalize accounts and make necessary entries in the corporation's books. The court concluded that Subramanyam's actions, including writing the letter (Ex. 1), were within the scope of his implied authority, making the acknowledgement binding on the corporation. Conclusion: The court held that the letter (Ex. 1) constituted an acknowledgement of liability by the corporation, and Subramanyam had the implied authority to make such an acknowledgement. As a result, the suits were not barred by limitation. The court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for further proceedings to ascertain the amounts due to the appellants. The court also directed the corporation to pay the appellants' costs of the appeals.
|
