9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these goods adhoc payment of ₹ 7,58,232/- had been made in the financial year 2004-2005 against the amount due of ₹ 16,64,130/-. Balance amount of ₹ 9,05,898/- was due towards the principal. Admittedly, last payment made by the respondent to the petitioner was on 30.11.2004. Further case of the petitioner is that on 21.07.2006 (page 52 of the paper book) respondent had acknowledged the goods received by the petitioner and given Form 3B No. 205052 for ₹ 29,14,770/-; submission being that this receipt of Form 3B by the respondent on 21.07.2006 has stretched the period of limitation; present petition filed by the petitioner on 20.07.2009 is thus within the period of limitation. 2. Respondent had put in appearance a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unding circumstances may also be considered. (see Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. MMTC Ltd. reported in (113) 2004 DLT 474). 6. In another judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court reported as 168 (2010) DLT 591 titled as Alliance Paints and Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hari Kishan Gupta (Deceased) through LRs. , a question arose whether Central Sales Tax Form i.e. the 'C' form could have been treated as an acknowledgment of a debt to which the answer given was in the negative; it was held that the 'C' form can at best be treated as an acknowledgment of the goods received and would not fit within the definition of an 'acknowledgment' as contained in Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The relevant extract of that j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been made in the petition that on 21.07.2006 the respondent had acknowledged the debt, this Court has nevertheless to examine and satisfy itself as to whether the document dated 21.07.2006 did in fact constitute an acknowledgement or not. 9. Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment reported in AIR 1961 SC 1236 titled as Shapoor Fredoom Mzda vs. Durga Prosad Chamaria and Ors. is misplaced. This judgment in fact lays down the principle which has been noted (supra). Submission of the petitioner that the surrounding circumstances (communications dated 18.03.2005, 10.11.2005 and 20.08.2006 admit of a jural relationship between the parties is a misdirected argument. These are letters written by the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
