9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Period of Limitation 2. Recovery of Amount Due Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Period of Limitation: The plaintiff-appellant challenged the findings of the lower Appellate Court which held that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court had initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, stating that the cause of action accrued on 14.8.1986 when the defendant-respondents finally refused to make the payment, thus making the suit filed on 29.8.1986 within the prescribed period. The lower Appellate Court reversed this finding, relying on precedents that indicated letters merely stating that the matter was under consideration do not amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The High Court, however, found that the letters dated 7.12.1983 (Ex.PIO) and 14.8.1986 (Ex.P11) did constitute an acknowledgment of liability, thereby resetting the limitation period and making the suit timely. 2. Recovery of Amount Due: The Trial Court found that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 1,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 1.8.1983. This finding was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court noted that the delay in the installation of the generator was due to the defendant-respondents' failure to provide necessary infrastructure, and thus, the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to the claimed amount. The High Court upheld this decision, confirming the plaintiff-appellant's entitlement to the recovery amount and interest. Detailed Analysis: Period of Limitation: The High Court scrutinized the letters exchanged between the parties. The letter dated 7.12.1983 (Ex.PIO) from the defendant-respondents acknowledged the subsisting liability by stating that the matter regarding payment was under consideration and would be resolved soon. The letter dated 14.8.1986 (Ex.P11) was a final refusal to pay, which the plaintiff-appellant argued reset the limitation period. The High Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which allows for a fresh period of limitation upon written acknowledgment of liability. The Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd., which supports a liberal construction of acknowledgment statements. The High Court concluded that the letters constituted a clear acknowledgment of the jural relationship and subsisting liability, thereby making the suit filed on 1.9.1986 within the limitation period. Recovery of Amount Due: The High Court affirmed the findings of both the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court regarding the recovery of the amount due. The courts found that the delay in the installation of the generator was attributable to the defendant-respondents' failure to provide the necessary infrastructure. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest. The High Court upheld this decision, confirming that the plaintiff-appellant's claim was valid and enforceable. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower Appellate Court's judgment on the issue of limitation and affirming the recovery of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from 1.8.1983. The plaintiff-appellant was also awarded costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
|
