9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied with a similar rejection of its claim having challenged the same and the said challenge having succeeded. The matter in fact is not res integra. - money claim, suit for which has become barred by time / limitation, cannot be allowed in writ jurisdiction. - writ petition dismissed - decided against the assessee. - W. P. (C) No. 3821/2014 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2014 - Hon ble The Chief Justice Hon ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sujit Ghosh with Mr. Nakul Mohta Mr. Sashank, Advs. For the Respondents : Mrs. Kiran Jai, CGSC Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv. for R-1 to 5. ORDER Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed in or about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Venkatasubba Rao Vs. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1773, holding that the limitation for a suit for recovery of amount illegally appropriated by the Government is governed by Article 62 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 (which is equivalent to Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963), prescribing the limitation of three years commencing from the date when the money is received , for a suit for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff‟s use. The argument that the residuary Article (120 of the 1908 Act and 113 of the 1963 Act) providing a limitation of six years under the 1908 Act would be applicable was rejected. It was generally observed that a suit for recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he officials of the DGFT, Central Government and various other authorities but has not given any particulars. The only plea is of the petitioner after the receipt of the letter dated 21st March, 2011 having sent letter dated 20th September, 2011 stating that the decision taken in the meeting held on 15th March, 2011 was not applicable to the petitioner and asking the respondents to release the payments towards DEB due to the petitioner. However the petitioner admits that no response was received thereto. However the same does not advance the case of the petitioner. In fact, the counsel is unable to show that there was any duty of the respondents to respond to such letter. The counsel for the petitioner is also unable to tell whether any re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to revive such a claim which it had given up and / or which had become stale merely because some other who was not satisfied with a similar rejection of its claim having challenged the same and the said challenge having succeeded. 8. The matter in fact is not res integra. A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. was a member), in Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. New Variety Tent House 189 (2012) DLT 65 has held that money claim, suit for which has become barred by time / limitation, cannot be allowed in writ jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006 laying down that though the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the grant of relief under Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution. Mention with benefit may also be made of D.Cawasji Co. Vs. State of Mysore (1975) 1 SCC 636. 10. Mention may also be made of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 439 [also noticed in New Variety Tent House (supra)] laying down that normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability. 11. The counsel for the petitioner after the hearing has handed over copies of the judgment in H.D. Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC 337 and Miss Parvati K. Moorjani Vs. A. Fonseca AIR 1988 Bombay 366 (FB). While in the former, the plea of laches was rejected for the reason of the petitioner having a very strong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
