9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Partnership Act and carries on business as a public carrier of goods by road. It has a branch at Bombay and in July 1977 agreed to transport goods belonging to the Corporation at the rate of ₹ 2,400/- per truck load of 10 tonnes from Hapur in Uttar Pradesh to the Corporation's factory at Thanke. The goods on arrival were to be provided free storage space for a period of 3 but extended to 15 days at the plaintiff's Thane godown. On 16th July 1977, the Corporation entrusted to the plaintiff at Hapur in U. P. 8 truck-load consignments of mango juice for carriage to and delivery at Thane. The consignments aforementioned arrived at Thane on 19th or 20th July 1977 and actual delivery thereof was taken by the Corporation 17- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the effect of an acknowledgment in writing vis-a-vis liabilities for which the limitation has expired. Excluding the unnecessary words, this section reads as follows :-- (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liabilities, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. Explanation -- For the purposes of this section -- (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in difficulty is, in regard to the amount admissible as unloading charges. It has not established the incurring of any expense for unloading of the consignments. Turning to the major question viz. whether Ex. 35 brings the claim within limitation, it was argued that the said communication makes no reference to the exact amount payable and to what the said liability relates. We do not see how such an ambiguity can be read into Ex. 35. To understand Ex. 35, one has to go to Ex. 37 to which Ex. 35 purports to be a reply. In Ex. 37, plaintiff was calling upon the Corporation to reimburse it for the storage and unloading charges quantified at ₹ 37,800/- and ₹ 7I4/- respectively. While replying to Ex. 37, the Corporation specificall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent made without consideration is void, unless-- (3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have en forced payment but for the law for the limitation of suit..... such an agreement is a contract. If Ex. 35 does not amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of that expression appearing in S. 18 of the Limitation Act, the same certainly attracts sub-sec. (3) of S. 25 of the Indian Contract Act. Therefore, however looked at, the claim was within limitation and we so hold. 5. Plaintiff has claimed past interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the storage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
