Karnataka High Court
Private Eye (P)Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Hind High Vaccum Co.Pvt.Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-26-02
C.R.P. : 819 of 2001
Limitation - Recovery of Sum - CRP 819/2001, CRP 820/2001 - United Bank of India v. Nareshkumar - [Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 6 Rule 14] - The court set aside the impugned judgments of the trial court on the grounds that the suits were not barred by limitation and the trial court failed to frame appropriate issues. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal with a direction to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Company, engaged in providing security services, filed suits for recovery of sums from the respondent. The trial court dismissed the suits on the grounds of lack of authorization and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned judgments of the trial court were not justified and set them aside. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaints were duly signed and verified by a competent person? 2. Whether the suits filed by the petitioner Company are within the prescribed limitation period?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Nareshkumar, emphasizing that procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. It also noted that the trial court failed to frame appropriate issues regarding the limitation for filing the suits.
Final Decision: Revision petitions allowed. The impugned orders of the trial court were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal with a direction to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in both the petitions.
( 2 ) IN CRP 819/2001 the petitioner-Company is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 14/12/2000 passed by the XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore trial Court in SC16698/1999 whereby the learned Small Causes Judge dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23720/- from the defendant with interest at 24% from the date of suit till realisation.
( 3 ) IN CRP 820/2001 the petitioner-Company is questioning the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 14/12/2000 passed by the trial Court in SC 16699/1999 whereby the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,335/- from the defendant respondent with interest at 24% from the date of suit till realisation, has been dismissed.
( 4 ) AS the parties are common and common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
( 5 ) THE facts of the case in both the revision petitions briefly stated are as follows :the petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of rendering security service to various companies, institutions, individuals etc. , During the course of business, the respondent approached the petitioner for providing security service at their factory premises. The petitioner has been providing security service at the factory of the respondent as per the terms of the agreement. Respondent being satisfied with the service of the petitioner, was renewing the contract from time to time. However, the services of the petitioner was terminated w. e. f. 1-4-1998. The respondent deducted a sum of Rs. 13,500/- from the petitioner's bill during the period of December, 199 4/04/1995 towards the cost of certain items alleged to have been stolen from the respondent's factory on 3-1-1995. In view of that, respondent withheld a sum of Rs. 13,500/- on untenable grounds. Hence, the petitioner has filed a suit in SC No. 16698/1999 for recovery of Rs. 23,720/- which is the subject matter in CRP 819/2001.
( 6 ) IN respect of deduction of Rs. 8,250/- from the plaintiff-petitioner's bill during the period Jan. , 1998 towards the cost of certain items alleged to have been lost from respondent's factory, the petitioner withheld Rs. 11,335/ -. Hence, the petitioner plaintiff filed the suit SC 16699/99 for recovery of Rs. 11,335/- which is the subject matter in CRP 820/2001.
( 7 ) THE respondent has appeared before the trial Court and filed written statement in both the suits denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the plaints. Further it is stated in the written statements that the suit filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation and also contended that the petitioner who is a director has signed the plaints and he was not authorised to do so. Therefore, he contended that the suits are not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing both the sides and after framing issues and considering the evidence of the parties oral and documentary has dismissed both the suits filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-company has not authorised the Director to file the suit and sign the plaints nor the petitioner Company has produced any authorisation by way of passing the resolution or executing a power of attorney etc. , and also taking into consideration that the suits filed by the petitioner are barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner has presented these revision petitions. 7-A. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the material on record. Further he has rightly pointed out that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. He is quick
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.