9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum and Rs. 4,43,987.96 as interest was outstanding against various bills raised for providing advertising services to the respondent-company by the petitioner. 2. Admittedly, the statutory notice was duly replied to in terms of the letter dated 27-10-1997. In it, reliance was placed on letter dated 24-4-1995 written by the petitioner to M/s. Adonis (India) Ltd. which is undisputably a sister concern of the respondent-company. It reads as follows : "Dear Sir, This has reference to our discussions at your office on 20th April, 1995 regarding the Hoarding sites in Delhi metro. As decided and agreed mutually between you and us, we would like to inform you that we will not accept any sort of deductions or adjustments on our bills beyon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent, had acknowledged liability of a sum of Rs. 43,52,179. Even in this memorandum, there is a mention of Angad Panasonic (P.) Ltd., which company was also mentioned in the letter dated 24-4-1995 along with Angad Electronics and Angad Enterprises. Furthermore, the so-called admission of liability has been assumed by Vaka Electronics P. Ltd. Savak Ltd. which is the respondent Co. in CP. No. 61 of 1998. The petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. It is palpably obvious that there are two groups of companies on either side and adjustments of claims were to be freely made within the two groups. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that four suits have been filed on the Original Sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pleadings it is clear that the remaining amounts are interest unilaterally charged by the petitioner. The debt is palpably barred since over three years have elapsed before the filing of the present petition. This question had also been considered in Chandradhar Goswami s case ( supra ). The following passage from the judgment is self-explanatory : "8. Then we come to the question of limitation. The suit is clearly within time insofar as the liability for sale under the mortgage-deed is concerned as it was filed within 12 years of the execution of the mortgage ( see article 132 of the Limitation Act of 1908). As to the personal liability under this deed, that is beyond time as the suit was filed more than six years after the executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
