SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 965

V.GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. – Appellant
Versus
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

A suit for money recovery by the railway would generally not invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act. This is because Article 112 specifically provides a limitation period of 30 years for suits filed directly by the Central Government or State Governments.

Since the railway is an autonomous statutory body established under specific legislation, it is considered a separate legal entity from the Central Government itself. Although it is owned and controlled by the government, it does not fall within the category of suits directly initiated by the Central Government. Therefore, the benefit of the extended limitation period under Article 112 does not automatically apply to suits filed by the railway for recovery of money.

Instead, the limitation period for such claims would typically be governed by the general provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to suits for recovery of money, which is usually three years from the date the cause of action arises, unless a specific provision states otherwise (!) (!) .

In summary, a money recovery suit filed by the railway would not normally invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act, as it is a separate legal entity and not a suit directly filed by the Central Government.


Judgment :

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1085/2008 and 2409/2009:

2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common and facts are identical, we dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.

3. Heard Mr. R.D. Agrawala, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals and Ms. Tatini Basu, learned counsel for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2409/2009. Despite service of notice on the sole-respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1085/2008, he remained unrepresented.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from the leading case i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1085/2008. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing Regular Second Appeal No. 835/2007 by affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.09.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani in dismissing the original suit filed by the appellant herein against the respondent on the ground that the suit claim is barred by limitation. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal(s), urging various grounds.

5. Mr. R.D. Agrawala, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia contends that the appel


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top