9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1956 and it runs its business of restaurants under the name and style of Copper Dome and a Pub under the name and style of Nevilles Cross Free House at Nevilles Cross Complex, Darlington Road, Durham City, County; Durham, London (U.K.). 4. The plaintiff wanted furniture to renovate its restaurant at London. The defendants are stated to be manufacturer of furniture in India. The plaintiff in order to renovate its restaurant at London placed purchase order on the defendants for purchase of some furniture. The purchase order was placed in November, 1999. The terms and conditions of supply of furniture by the defendants to the plaintiff were reduced in writing and are contained in document annexed as Annexure-A at page 20 of the paper b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of action and gives various dates on which cause of action allegedly arose to the plaintiff for filing of this suit. Para 29 of the plaint is extracted below:- 29. That the cause of action arose to the petitioner in November 1999, when the petitioner placed the order with the defendant, thereafter it arose on 3.3.2000 when the defendant raised the bill no.265, then again arose on 10.01.2000 when the defendant sent the e-mail regarding the material attaching the pictures etc. of the furniture, it again arose when the defective material was received by the petitioner at London, thereafter, it arose in September 2000 when the petitioner obtained the first opinion from the expert at London and arose again on or around September/October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome time in September/October, 2000 when the defendants allegedly handed over the drawings to the petitioner on CD-Rom. The plaintiff further relies on date of 5.8.2002 as according to it cause of action also arose in its favour on that date when a meeting between the parties was held and in that meeting the defendant allegedly agreed to the defects pointed out in the supply of furniture made to the plaintiff. 8. The last date of alleged cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint is of 5.8.2002. Mr.Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has contended that the limitation for the purpose of filing of this suit should be reckoned from 5.8.2002 when the defendants had acknowledged that the furniture sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d acknowledgment is not in writing so as to bring the suit within the purview of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 11. In my opinion, this suit filed by the plaintiff on 18.12.2003 with regard to cause of action that allegedly arose prior to three years of filing of the suit, is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 12. In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, IA No.10765/2007 filed on behalf of the defendants is allowed and the main recovery suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 13. Any observations in this order will not influence the decision of the suit pending before the Civil Judge, Delhi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
