9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Suit for recovery of overdue amount, limitation period for filing the suit, acknowledgment of debt u/s 18 of the Limitation Act, abuse of process of law.
Summary: The appellant, a seller of batteries, filed a Regular First Appeal challenging the trial Court's dismissal of a suit for recovery of overdue amounts totaling to &8377; 7,49,729/-. The main contention revolved around the ambiguity in the appellant's arguments regarding the status of the 17 bills subject to the suit, which were allegedly part of previous arbitration proceedings. The respondent, Union of India (UOI), raised the defense of the suit being time-barred and disputed the acknowledgment of debt in another contract. The trial Court found the suit barred by limitation and lacking in clarity, leading to its dismissal. On the issue of limitation, the trial Court held that the suit was filed after the prescribed period of 3 years from the date the amount became due, as evidenced by a notice issued by the plaintiff. The appellant's argument of the respondent's inaction and negligence was rejected, emphasizing the plaintiff's delay in pursuing legal action or arbitration despite the bills being withheld since 1978. The absence of any written acknowledgment within the statutory period further weakened the appellant's case. The High Court concurred with the trial Court's findings, emphasizing the lack of any valid acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period. The Court criticized the appellant for attempting to exploit an alleged admission of payment in an unrelated execution proceeding, despite the bills being subject to prior arbitration and an Award. The appeal was dismissed as meritless, with costs imposed on the appellant for wasting judicial time and attempting to circumvent legal processes.
|
