9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the entire claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is barred by limitation based on the contentions made by the plaintiffs in the plaint itself. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Limitation of the Plaintiffs' Claim Contention of the Plaintiffs: - The plaintiffs filed a suit to recover Rs. 3,06,669.50 from the defendant-company for goods sold under four invoices dated February 24, 1983, March 3, 1983, March 6, 1983, and March 25, 1983. The total amount due was Rs. 2,28,642.50. - The plaintiffs claimed that the amounts were due after one month and that the defendants were liable to pay interest at 20% per annum as mutually agreed. - The defendants made part payments of Rs. 50,000 on March 14, 1983, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,78,642.50. - The plaintiffs argued that their suit was within the limitation period due to the defendants' acknowledgment of liability and consent terms in Appeal No. 837 of 1986. - The plaintiffs contended that the consent order dated October 10, 1986, extended the period for filing the suit and that the debt related back to the date of filing the petition on September 4, 1985, when it was within the limitation period. Contention of the Defendants: - The defendants did not file a written statement but raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the entire claim was barred by limitation based on the facts stated in the plaint. - The defendants contended that the consent terms or the order passed on consent terms could not be considered as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and that Section 15(3) of the Limitation Act had no application. Court's Analysis: - Section 15(3) of the Limitation Act: The court found that Section 15(3) had no application as it pertains to suits by receivers or liquidators, which was not the case here. - Acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act: The court held that the consent terms confirming the original court's order could not be considered an acknowledgment of debt. The debts were time-barred by October 7, 1986, and the acknowledgment must be before the expiration of the prescribed period. - Waiver and Estoppel: The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the consent terms constituted a waiver of the limitation defense. The court emphasized that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is the court's duty to consider whether the suit is barred by limitation, even if no such defense is raised by the defendants. - Relation Back Doctrine: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the consent order related back to the date of filing the petition under the Companies Act. The court noted that the debts were time-barred by the time the consent terms were agreed upon. - Section 14 of the Limitation Act: The court considered whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the exclusion of time under Section 14. The court concluded that the company petition for winding up did not relate to the same matter in issue as the suit for recovery of debts and that the court in the company petition was not unable to entertain it due to a defect of jurisdiction. Conclusion: - The court found that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as the period of limitation could not be extended by the consent terms or any other reason. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. - The court ordered the refund of Rs. 60,000 deposited by the defendants as per the order in the company petition, along with any accrued amount, after a period of four weeks. Costs: - No costs were awarded to the defendants despite their success in getting the suit dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.
|
