9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Department of the State of Bihar (for short "the Department") at the rate of ₹ 174.95 per meter. The said agreement contained a clause for escalation of price. On the premise that the price of steel had gone up from ₹ 10804 per MT to ₹ 13031 per MT, appellant, by its letter dated 18.06.1992, stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement supply would be made only at the escalated rate for which the additional price was calculated at ₹ 24.09 per meter. 4. Orders for seven lakh meters of supply of black pipes were placed on 16.07.1992. The State worked out the escalation and determined the total increase at ₹ 24.09 per meter. On or about 4.11.1992, 'the Department', however, fixed the escalated rate of price of steel at ₹ 190.48 instead of ₹ 199.04. 5. On or about 18.03.1993, orders were placed for further supply of 50000 meters. 6. It is also not in dispute that 90% of the payment was to be made at the time of making supply and the rest 10% of the consideration was to be paid within a month thereafter. 7. Appellant, by its letter dated 4.06.1993, stated: "We find that the escalation granted to us is not correct as it d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued by a learned Judge of the High Court. 10. By an order dated 14.09.1995, a learned Single Judge of the said Court, opined: "The Petitioner in this application seeks two directions to the concerned authorities from this Court (i) for the payment of a sum of ₹ 30 lacs and odd as the price for certain materials (steel pipes) supplied by him under a government contract and (ii) for the payment of interests, the terms of the Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1992 on payments made to him after some delays. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in which any liability to make any payment to the petitioner is totally denied. In that view this Court aspect give nay relief (sic) to the petitioner in respect of his first claim and this writ petition is, accordingly, rejected in so far as the petitioner's first claim is concerned. The rejection of this writ petition, however, will not come in the way of the petitioner in case he files a suit or a representation for the realization of his alleged dues. If any suit or representation is filed by the petitioner that would be disposed of in accordance with law and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff is entitled to get escalated price at ₹ 199.04 and not at ₹ 190.48 granted by the State of Bihar." 13. The learned Single Judge, however, allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the suit, holding: "21. It has been argued by the learned Advocate of the plaintiff - respondent that the period during which the plaintiff was pursuing writ application before the High Court should also be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In this regard the learned Advocate of the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR (36) 1949 Patna Page 293 (Lal Bihar Lal and another, plaintiffs Vrs. Bani Madhava Khatri and others, Defendants). But I am of the view that the said decision will not apply in this case as the principle laid down in the decision cited above is applicable in such cases where the suit is filed in wrong Court that is a Court having no jurisdiction to entertain it or where a suit is instituted in the wrong court in consequence of a bonafide mistake of law of defect of procedure and not in cases where the party has chosen altogether a different remedy before a different Court having jurisdiction to grant relief. Under ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire contention of the appellant revolved around the arbitrary refusal on the part of respondent to pay the price of the steel in terms of the escalation clause. Even the amount claimed in the writ petition, viz., ₹ 39,04,497.84 was the same for which the suit was filed. The price of the steel, as contended in the writ petition, is the same in the suit as would appear from the writ petition and the judgment passed in Money Suit No. 97 of 1996, the relevant averments whereof are as under: Writ Petition "17. That the petitioner in this regard states and submits that the petitioner is entitled for escalated price of steel as per the terms of agreement and it has wrongly been fixed at 190.48 paise whereas according to the admitted position as accepted by the Secretary of the Department and as approved by the Minister incharge, it should have been 199.04 paise." Money Suit No. 97 of 1996 "…It is also said further that due to price escalation the defendants had to fix the rate at 199 and 4 paise per metre with effect from 19.07.92 but the granted escalation price only at rupees 190 and 40 paise which is an apparent calculation mistake." 21. Sub-section (1) of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia and Others v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Another (III) [(2004) 3 SCC 458] wherein Lahoti, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was), held as under: "In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, filing of civil writ petition claiming money relief cannot be said to be a proceeding instituted in good faith and secondly, dismissal of writ petition on the ground that it was not an appropriate remedy for seeking money relief cannot be said to be "defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature" within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the writ petition was not dismissed by the High Court on the ground of defect of jurisdiction. However, Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. The expression "other cause of like nature" came up for the consideration of this Court in Roshanlal Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi and it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
