Back
High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench)
S.B. Sinha, J.
Shree Durga Industrial Corpn. – Appellant
Versus
The Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. – Respondent
Appeal From Original Decree no. 87 of 1979 (R).
Decided On : 27.8.1987
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 24 - MONEY RECEIVED BY DEFENDANT FOR PLAINTIFF'S USE - TIME FROM WHICH PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN - PAYMENT MADE BY PLAINTIFF TO CUSTOM AUTHORITIES ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT - REFUND OF AMOUNT BY CUSTOM AUTHORITIES TO DEFENDANT - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF AMOUNT FROM DEFENDANT - LIMITATION PERIOD BEGINS FROM DATE OF PAYMENT BY PLAINTIFF TO CUSTOM AUTHORITIES, NOT FROM DATE OF REFUND OR DATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF PAYMENT TO DEFENDANT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff paid custom duty on behalf of defendant for export of mica. Mica could not be shipped and custom authorities issued refund order to defendant. Plaintiff learned about non-shipment in August/September 1975 and lodged claim with defendant. Defendant issued cheque to shipping agent, M/s G. Rangnath, without plaintiff's knowledge. Plaintiff filed suit in October 1977 for recovery of the amount.
Finding of the Court:
Suit was barred by limitation. Limitation period under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 begins from the date when money is received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. Plaintiff paid the amount to custom authorities on behalf of defendant, not as a loan or advance. Plaintiff was entitled to get back the amount from the defendant irrespective of whether it was refundable by the custom authorities. Defendant did not commit any fraud to keep the plaintiff unaware of the transaction. Plaintiff did not keep itself abreast with the events subsequent to handing over the goods to the defendant for shipment.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the facts of the case. Limitation period begins from the date of payment by the plaintiff to the custom authorities, not from the date of refund or date of knowledge of payment to the defendant. Plaintiff could have filed the suit within three years from the date of payment to the custom authorities. Plaintiff did not allege any fraud or other plea to save the period of limitation.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
S.B. Sinha, J. – This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by. Sri Sheo Kumar Prasad Verma passed in Money Suit No. 75 of 1977 whereby and wherein the said learned court dismissed the plaintiffs appellant's suit.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforementioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12, 475/- as described in the account of claim stated in the plaint i.e. a sum of Rs. 8153.78 paise being the amount illegally retained by the defendant and a sum of Rs. 4,421.22 paise being interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforementioned sum.
3. As the fact of the case have been stated in details by the learned court below; it is not necessary to state the facts in details over again herein for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.
4. Suffice is to say that the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit on the pleadings that as per rule and policy of the Government of India of sales and exports of Mica to the foreign buyers as per prevalent mode through the defendant. The plaintiff secured through the defendant a business of exporting Mica of various grades to Rotterdam in pursuance whereof the plaintiff made over ten cases of Mica to a shipping agent as directed by the defendant at Giridih for being exported. The plaintiff further alleged that for the aforementioned purpose it paid to the custom authorities sum of Rs. 8153.78 paise by a cheque dated 28.12.1972 for shipment of the aforementioned cases of Mica on behalf of the defendant.
It is further alleged that the said Mica could not be shipped as arranged and a refund order for a sum of Rs. 8153.78 paise was issued by the custom authorities to the defendant. The plaintiff came to learn about the non-shipment of the aforementioned 10 cases of Mica sometime in August/September, 1975 and thereafter it lodged its claim with the defendant for repayment of the said sum of Rs.8153.78 paise having come to learn the receipt of the aforementioned sum by the defendant, whereupon the defendant intimated that the refund order received by it from the custom authorities appear to be misplaced and requested the plaintiff to submit an indemnity bond duly signed by it for obtaining the duplicate order from the custom authorities which the plaintiff did in the year, 1976.
4. The plaintiff, however, came to learn subsequently that the defendant has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 8153.78 paise to the Manager of M/s G. Rangnath, the shipping agent aforementioned, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that in fact the defendant got the cheque dated 26.4.1973 back from the said M/s G. Rangnath and thereafter issued a fresh cheque on or about 7.5.1973. It is further alleged that the plaintiff having made an enquiry in that regard came to know that the defendant on receipt of the refund order from the custom authorities endorsed the same to M/s G. Rangnath and these facts became known to the plaintiff by the defendant by its letter dated 2nd July, 1976.
5. In the aforementioned suit the defendant-respondent appeared and took various legal objections which may be summarised as follows :-
(a) The suit is barred by limitation.
(b) The court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(c) M/s G. Rangnath is a necessary party to the suit and in its absence the suit cannot proceed.
(d) There is no cause of action for the suit.
6. The defendant in its written statement did not deny the basic facts stated by the plaintiff, and in fact admitted its liability to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs. 8153.78 paise to the plaintiff, but advanced a plea that as the payment of the aforementioned sum has been made to M/s G. Rangnath who was authorised on behalf of the plaintiff to receive the said amount on his behalf, the defendant stands discharged from its liability.
7. The learned court below has framed various issues but for the purpose of this case the follow in: issues are relevant : -
(a) Has the plaintiff got any cause of a
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
