Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sanjib Banerjee, Kausik Chanda, JJ.
M/s Kherapati Vanijya Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s Longview Tea Co Limited - Respondent
Appeal From Decree No. 40 of 2019; Civil Suit No. 21 of 2011
Decided On : 20-01-2020
Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Advocate, Sailesh Mishra, Advocate, Munir Ahmed, Advocate, Suman Kumar Dutt, Advocate, Rajarshi Dutta, Advocate, Amala Halder, Advocate, A.P. Agarwalla, Advocate
The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes the importance of pleadings and issues in civil litigation, the need for every relief to be founded on pleadings made by the parties, and the application of legal provisions related to acknowledgment of liability and part payment on account of a debt.
Headnote:
Limitation - Recovery of Balance Loan - Section 18, Section 19, Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The court discussed the nature of objections as to the admissibility of documents in evidence, the requirement of a concise statement of material facts in a plaint, and the consequences of failing to respond to a notice to admit documents. The court emphasized the importance of pleadings and issues in civil litigation and the need for every relief to be founded on pleadings made by the parties. The court also highlighted the legal provisions related to acknowledgment of liability and part payment on account of a debt, and their application in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff appealed against the dismissal of its claim for recovery of balance loan and interest on the ground of limitation. The defendant had made payments between 2006 and 2008, but the plaintiff claimed that the payments were not in full and final settlement of its dues. The plaintiff relied on a document dated September 19, 2001, as an agreement between the parties to suspend payment for a period of time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the veracity of the document dated September 19, 2001 and the agreement as to suspension of payment or the moratorium. The subsequent payments made by the defendant could not resurrect the plaintiff's right to pursue the claim as the claim was already barred by limitation. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
Issues: The key issues included the admissibility of the document dated September 19, 2001, the effect of subsequent payments made by the defendant on the plaintiff's claim, and the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of pleadings and issues in civil litigation, the need for every relief to be founded on pleadings made by the parties, and the legal provisions related to acknowledgment of liability and part payment on account of a debt. The court also highlighted the consequences of failing to respond to a notice to admit documents and the nature of objections as to the admissibility of documents in evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment in support of the decree was not interfered with. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee, J. - The plaintiff is in appeal against the dismissal of its claim for recovery of balance loan and interest on the ground of limitation.
2. The receipt of the loan by way of an inter-corporate deposit in May, 1998 is not in dispute. The interest or the rate of interest payable on the deposit is also not in dispute. Between 1998 and October, 2001 the defendant repaid Rs.1 lakh out of the principal amount of Rs.25 lakh and paid the interest due till such date. No payment was made by the defendant from or about October 19, 2001 till or about January 29, 2006. According to the plaintiff, the defendant paid a further sum of Rs.24 lakh between January 29, 2006 and February 3, 2008 but failed to make any payment thereafter, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs.46,57,024/- as at December 31, 2010. The claim was on account of such sum and further interest.
3. According to the plaintiff, a demand notice was issued to the defendant on January 28, 2011, detailing the claim of the plaintiff. The plaint does not refer to any reply having been received to the notice. The suit was instituted on or about February 3, 2011.
4. It is necessary first to notice the pleadings, particularly since the plaint does not refer to any agreement between the parties for the defendant to suspend payment in 2001 and resume the same in January, 2006, a period of more than four years. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the plaint are relevant in the context:
"7. Subsequently after sometimes passed, the repayment of the loan by defendant company became irregular and the principal balance due as on 19 October 2001 was 24,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty four lakhs only) as would appear by the statement of accounts maintained by the plaintiff company.
"8. Thereafter the defendant company stopped paying regular and agreed amount of interest and repayment of the said loan on some or other pretext.
"9. The plaintiff states that after repeated requests from the plaintiff company the defendant again started making payment of the dues of the plaintiff company, the first of which was paid on 28 January 2006 for Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh only)."
Paragraph 12 of the written statement must also be seen alongside the relevant averments in the plaint:
"12. With reference to paragraphs 7 to 11 of the plaint the defendant states that on the basis of the allegations made therein the purported claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has failed to disclose any payment between 19th October 2001 and 28th January 2006 within 3 years from 19th October 2001. No promise was made by the defendant in writing after 19th October 2001 and signed by any person authorized generally or specially by the defendant in that behalf to pay wholly or in part the alleged debt or the plaintiff. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the defendant states that in or around January 2006 the plaintiff agreed to accept a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- in full and final settlement of its claim under the said inter corporate deposit in instalments and accordingly the said amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in instalments between 28th January 2006 and 4th February 2008. The plaintiff accepted the said payment in terms of the said settlement without any protest. Upon payment of the said amount of Rs.24,00,000/- in instalments as aforesaid, the claim of the plaintiff stood fully discharged and satisfied. Save as aforesaid all allegations to the contrary made in the paragraphs under reference are denied and disputed. It is denied that the defendant accepted or confirmed the purported claim of the plaintiff as alleged or at all. The correctness of the purported particulars mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint is also denied and disputed. It is denied that a sum of Rs.46,57,024.00 or any part thereof on account of principal or interest or otherwise is due or payable by the defendant to the plaintiff."
5. It may also be noticed that paragraph 11 of the plaint contains a chart indicatin
