9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after half an hour of arguments by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff I am really unable to make much head or tail of the case as is being argued by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Sometime it is averred that the 17 bills which are the subject matter of the suit and the present appeal were in fact subject matter of an arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant/plaintiff and for which there is an Award in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, on other occasions it is said that there are no arbitration proceedings and in fact arbitration proceedings were with respect to another contract and in execution proceedings of the Award in those other proceedings the amount of the subject bills was sought to be attached, and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -78 9.199/00 11. 16/78-79 29-4-78 7.301/00 12. 17/78-79 29-4-78 5.743.00 13. 18/78-79 29-4-78 12.516/00 14. 19/78-79 29-4-78 16.687/00 15. 20/78-79 29-4-78 18.773/00 16. 21/78-79 29-4-78 5.674/00 17. 8/78-79 29-4-78 4.747/00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of judicial proceedings and which have achieved finality. I really fail to understand that if I accept this stand of the appellant/plaintiff as urged through its counsel then how at all could this suit have been filed. This suit was therefore liable to be dismissed on this short ground itself. 6. On the issue of limitation, and which was issue no. 2 as framed by the trial Court, the trial Court has observed as under:- 16. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant. Thus question, which falls for determination, is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation. 17. A perusal of the entire record nowhere suggests as to on which date, the defendant has admitted in the execution case filed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by law is three years. The plaintiff on 11.12.1990 filed the present suit. Thus the period of limitation started to run against the plaintiff from 6.11.1986 i.e. the date when the Controller of Accounts confirmed that the decretal amount of ₹ 3,02,285/- was recovered from the other bills of their client. 20. At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the amount of the 17 bills was withheld on account of inaction and negligence on the part of the defendant which otherwise is a Government body and as such the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the amount which otherwise is legally due to the plaintiff. I am not in agreement with contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff for the following reasons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect to amounts due of the bills of the year 1978 a suit cannot be filed after 12 years inasmuch as limitation for filing a suit for recovery for supply of goods is 3 years. The only way in which limitation could have been extended was that within a period of 3 years of the date of the bills i.e. 29.4.1978 there is an acknowledgment in writing signed by the respondent/defendant/UOI with respect to the 17 bills. Admittedly, there is not a single sheaf of paper on record showing any alleged acknowledgment as required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The only ground which is urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff is that in the execution proceedings in the year 1985, the respondent/defendant admitted that amounts of these bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment due of the disputed 17 bills in an execution proceedings although the bills were subject matter of arbitration proceedings and an Award i.e. a due adjudication. The appellant/plaintiff must have thought that UOI have committed a mistake of admitting amounts due of the 17 bills (although there was due adjudication/Award for these bills) in a collateral execution proceedings. In view of the above, the appeal being wholly devoid of merit, is dismissed with costs of ₹ 40,000/- in view of the ratio of judgment in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 and in terms of Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule 15. Costs shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
