9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1513 - SC - Indian LawsInterest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Ordinance - suit filed by appellants were within time limitation or not - it is contended that Act, 1993 is retroactive and further any outstanding amount at the time of commencement of the Act ought to attract interest under The interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993. HELD THAT - Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that in event, a suit is instituted after the prescribed period, it shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. The Court by mandate of law, is obliged to dismiss the suit, which is filed beyond limitation even though no pleading or arguments are raised to that effect. The provisions of Sections 4 to 20 are exceptions when suit beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in the Schedule shall not be dismissed as required by Section 3. Order VII Rule 6 uses the words the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed . The exemption provided Under Sections 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are based on certain facts and events. Section 19, with which we are concerned, provide for a fresh period of limitation, which is founded on certain facts, i.e., (i) whether payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, (ii) an acknowledgement of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. A perusal of the plaint indicates that there is no pleading as to exception of limitation by running any fresh period of limitation as per Section 19. In paragraph 10, the details of delivery challans have been given, last challan being dated 04.10.1993 has been mentioned by which supply was made. In paragraph 12, details of payments received have also been mentioned, in which last being made on 05.03.1994 has been mentioned, but for the last payment made on 05.03.1994, there was no pleading of an acknowledgment on the part of the Respondents, which could result in start of fresh period of limitation - There being no specific pleading by the Plaintiffs claiming any start of fresh period of limitation, there was no occasion for Defendants to raise any reply in reference to Section 19. The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided. The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time - review petition dismissed. Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - Review judgment does not grant interest under Act, 1993 since the High Court in the review judgment did not interfere with the earlier finding that Petitioner is not entitled for benefit under Act, 1993. The review on the ground on which liberty was sought was in essence not accepted by the High Court in its review judgment - there are no ground to review the petition. Review petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. 4. Whether the Act, 1993 is retroactive and applicable to the outstanding amount at the time of its commencement. 5. Maintainability of Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 against the review judgment of the High Court dated 19.03.2013. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation: The primary issue was whether the suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation. The Court concluded that the suit was indeed barred by time. The last supply was completed on 04.10.1993, and thus, the amount became due on 04.11.1993. The period of three years started running from 04.11.1993, making the suit filed on 10.01.1997 beyond the limitation period. The Petitioner argued that the last payment made on 05.03.1994 should start a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Court found that there was no specific pleading in the plaint to claim the benefit of Section 19, and thus, the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The Petitioner contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of the time during which a previous proceeding was being prosecuted with due diligence. However, the Court rejected this claim, noting that the writ petition was filed by the Assam Conductors Manufacturers Association, a different entity from the Petitioner. The Court also observed that the writ petition was dismissed on 28.08.1997, after the suit was filed on 10.01.1997, and a writ appeal was subsequently filed by the Association, further detracting from the conditions required for extending the benefit of Section 14. 3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act: The Court examined whether the Petitioner could claim a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which allows for a new limitation period to begin if a payment on account of a debt is made before the expiration of the prescribed period. The Court found that there was no specific pleading in the plaint to claim the benefit of Section 19, and thus, the Petitioner was not entitled to this benefit. The Court emphasized that for claiming exemption under Section 19, there must be specific pleading and proof, which were absent in this case. 4. Whether the Act, 1993 is retroactive and applicable to the outstanding amount at the time of its commencement: The Petitioner argued that the Act, 1993, which provides for interest on delayed payments to small scale industries, is retroactive and should apply to the outstanding amount at the time of its commencement. The Court had already considered and rejected this argument in its judgment dated 23.01.2019, holding that the Act, 1993, did not apply retroactively to the outstanding amount. The Court reiterated that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to reargue questions already decided. 5. Maintainability of Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 against the review judgment of the High Court dated 19.03.2013: The Petitioner contended that the appeal against the review judgment of the High Court was maintainable. The Court had specifically considered the maintainability of the appeal in its judgment dated 23.01.2019 and found it to be not maintainable. The review judgment did not grant interest under the Act, 1993, and the High Court did not interfere with the earlier finding that the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under the Act, 1993. Thus, the Court found no ground to review its decision on the maintainability of the appeal. Conclusion: Review Petition (C) Nos. 786-787 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 789 of 2019, and Review Petition (C) No. 788 of 2019 were dismissed, with the Court finding no merit in the arguments presented by the Petitioners. The suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation, and the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of Sections 14 and 19 of the Limitation Act or the retroactive application of the Act, 1993. The appeal against the review judgment of the High Court was found to be not maintainable.
|
