Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
M/S SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD - Appellant
Versus
THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
RSA 391 of 2016
Decided On : 02-01-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Jain & Mr. G.L. Bhatia.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of different provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the relevance of communications and legal notices in extending the period of limitation for institution of the suit.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Barred by Limitation - Article 113, Section 22, Articles 2 & 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court discussed the application of Article 113 of the Limitation Act and the computation of the period of limitation with reference to Section 22 and Articles 2 & 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also considered the question of limitation as a mixed question of law and fact and the relevance of communications and legal notices in extending the period of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for rendition of account and repayment of excess money, which was rejected by the lower courts on the grounds of being barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was indeed barred by limitation based on the observations made by the lower courts and the admitted case of the appellant/plaintiff.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was barred by limitation, and the relevance of the application of different provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was indeed barred by limitation as the cause of action arose within a specific period, and the communications and legal notices did not extend the period of limitation for institution of the suit.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by the High Court as no substantial question of law arose to require interference.
CM No. 48194/2016
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
RSA 391/2016
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the concurrent decision of the two Courts below; order dated 06.01.2016 by the learned Trial Court and order dated 23.07.2016 by the First Appellate Court rejecting the plaint in Civil Suit No. 950/2014 being barred by limitation.
2. Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant has submitted that both the courts below have wrongly applied Article 113 of the Limitation Act to hold that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by limitation. Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate has further submitted that in fact the suit of the plaintiff was governed by Section 22 and Articles 2 & 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 as the period of limitation has to be computed with effect from 08.05.2002 when the Senior Manager of the respondent bank communicated to the appellant/plaintiff that the cheques were being purchased at the prevalent rate. Hence, reckoned from that date, the suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 2005 was well within limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has relied upon Khaja Quthubullah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1995 Andhra Pradesh 43 and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur vs. Miss Priya Soloman AIR 1999 Rajasthan 102 contending that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and could not have been disposed of without giving an opportunity to lead evidence.
4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record.
5. While dismissing the appeal, the First Appellate Court has made the following observations:
‘6. Having gone through the observations made by the learned trial Court, I find that learned trial Court has rightly observed that for the relief of rendition of account and repayment of excess money, there is no specific article provided in the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act in cases where the limitation period is not provided in the Act, their limitation period of three years would commence from the date when the right to sue accrued. Thus the suit to recover the excess amount could have been filed only within the stipulated period of three years from the date when the right to sue accrued.
7. In the instant case as per the plaintiff’s own version, the local cheques/drafts discounting facility to the extent of Rs. 25 lacs was extended w.e.f. the month of November 1997 to December 1999 and somewhere in the month of July 2000, the plaintiff/appellant noticed that the defendants/respondents herein were charged interest/commission @ Rs. 4/- per thousand rupees on local cheques/drafts in arbitrary manner in violation of the assurances given to the plaintiff/appellant.
8. By these averments of the plaintiff/appellant, it transpires that the alleged excess amount charged by the defendant from the plaintiff was till December 1999 and therefore the learned trial Court rightly observed that at best it can be said that right to sue accrued in favour of the plaintiff/appellant herein in December 1999 and as such, the plaintiff was legally entitled to file the present suit for rendition of account and repayment of excess amount till December 2002 and not till May 2005 as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant herein. Thus I find no merit in the plea taken by the appellant, hence, this plea is rejected.’
6. Learned First Appellate Court also rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the decision in C.P. Kapur vs. Chairman 2013 (198) DLT 56 has no applicability to the facts of the present case or the same has been wrongly applied by the learned Trial Court in the instant case.
7. Copy of the plaint annexed with this appeal incorporates the following averments which were considered by the Courts below to decide the question of limitation:
‘8. That the facility as referred to in
