Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Gammon India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Aishwarya Earth Movers – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This Commercial Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed by the I Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru ('Commercial Court' for short) in Commercial Original Suit No.298/2020.
2. We have heard Shri. Prakash B.N, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The suit was filed seeking a decree for payment of an amount of Rs.94,39,707.75/- towards unpaid bills for Work Done, Security Deposit, Administrative Expenses and Royalty along with interest from the date of demand as against the appellant.
4. The plaintiff/respondent herein raised the contention that the plaintiff was granted a contract by the defendants for the construction of five new bridges on the Gundya Subramanya Road. After the work was satisfactorily completed, the plaintiff had sought payments from the defendants, where upon the defendants had specifically informed that the amounts due to the plaintiff would be paid as and when payments were made to the defendants by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited ('KRDCL' for short). It is submitted that when
An acknowledgment of debt resets the limitation period, and valid documentation from the plaintiff established defendants' liability despite claims of time-barred debt.
The rejection of a plaint on the ground of limitation should be based on the allegations in the plaint and should be decided after trial and not at the threshold.
Point of Law : Arbitration - Since the claimant in this case has invoked section 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 61 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be invoked.
Claims for commission under separate contracts must adhere to limitation periods; insufficient evidence of payments from clients bars enforcement of claims.
The main legal point established is that a plaintiff may be entitled to extra-work claims based on actual work executed, and objections raised without evidence may lack basis.
Acknowledgment of a debt in writing interrupts the limitation period allowing a fresh period from the acknowledgment date, making the suit valid despite initial time lapse.
Acknowledgments made after limitation expiry do not revive time-barred claims under the Limitation Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
