Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
M/s Just Water (TZ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Canadian Crystaline Water India Ltd. – Respondent
O.S.A. (CAD) No. 77 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2024
LIMITATION - Commercial Dispute - Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 13 - Summary: The court discussed the issue of limitation in a commercial dispute regarding the non-supply of machinery. The court found that promises to deliver within the limitation period extended the limitation, and thus the suit was not barred by limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- for non-delivery of machinery. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that promises to deliver within the limitation period extended the limitation, and thus the suit was not barred by limitation. The court remitted the matter for consideration of other issues.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The court also considered the non-delivery of machinery and the correspondence between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: Promises to deliver within the limitation period extended the limitation, allowing the suit to proceed.
Final Decision: The Original Side Appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the suit was remitted for trial to decide other issues including the question of damages.
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2021 made in C.S. No. 486 of 2016.
1. The plaintiff in the Civil Suit in C.S. No. 486/2016 is on an appeal challenging the judgment and decree made in the suit, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. The learned Judge has not gone into the other issues, since he took up the issue of limitation as a first issue.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- equivalent to 1,62,820 USD consisting of a sum of Rs. 32,06,250/- equivalent to 47,500 USD, being the cost of the undelivered equipment, Rs. 5,41,350/- being the pro-rata packaging, forwarding, training, erection and installation charges and the freight charge paid by the plaintiff in respect of the undelivered machinery and a sum of Rs. 40,36,500/- being the interest @ 18% p.a. payable by the defendant in respect of the cost of undelivered equipment and installation charges thereon paid by the plaintiff and a sum of Rs. 32,06,250/- being the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the non-delivery of the equipment.
3. The suit came to be filed in the following backdrop:
| S. No. | Description | Qty | Price in Dollars |
| 1. | 1000 LPH Mineral Water Processing with Antiscalant Dosing, 2 stage UV and 3 Stage Micron Filter, Final Ozonator, 1000 Litres Blending Tank, 1000 litres Ozone Contact Tank and 2 Nos. SS forwarding Pump | 1 No. | US $ 7,000.00 |
| 2 | 30 BPM Rotary Filling Machine with Rinser, filler and capper and online built in shrink tunnel for PVC labels | 1 No. | US $ 15,000.00 |
| 3 | Fully Automated Pet Blowing Machine SSB20 @ 2000 BPH Mould: 300 ml, 500 ml, 1000 ml, 1500 ml Compressor Drier and Chiller | 1 No. | Us $ 47,500.00 |
| 4 | Multiple Shrink Wrapping Machine for Packing the Pet Bottles | 1 No. | US $ 7,500.00 |
3.2. It is not in dispute that the entire Proforma Invoice amount of 90,000 US$ was received by the defendants by 11.01.2010, in four tranches. While the defendant supplied the other machineries, the Fully Automatic Pet Blowing Machine, which of a value of Rs. 47,500 USD was not supplied.
3.3. The plaintiff made several complaints through e-mails and there were responses from the defendant and its representative regarding supply of machineries at various points of time. Finally when the plaintiff could not succeed in its attempt to persuade the defendant to supply the machinery, a Lawyer's Notice was issued on 21.05.2015, claiming cost of machinery and damages. A reply was sent to the said notice on 17.06.2015, wherein it was claimed that all the machineries were delivered. This forced the plaintiff to send a rejoinder dated 31.08.2015 and the same was followed up with the institution of the suit on 20.06.2016.
3.4. According to the plaintiff, non-supply of machineries entails them to a judgment and decree for payment of the value of machineries with interest and damages.
3.5. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the suit is barred by limitation, it had supplied the machineries but the plaintiff had not taken delivery of the machineries from the Port, which according to the plaintiff false.
3.6. Before the trial Court, PW-1 was examined on the side of the plaintiff and Exs.P1 to P33 were marked. On the side of the defendant, DW-1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2
Promises to deliver within the limitation period extended the limitation, allowing the suit to proceed.
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.
The acknowledgment of debt in communications does not extend the limitation period for filing a suit unless it resets the cause of action according to the Limitation Act.
Unilateral invoice without acknowledgment does not extend limitation for contract payment claims; warranty period does not postpone cause of action.
A party cannot unilaterally terminate a commercial contract due to delay unless an express termination clause exists. Furthermore, statutory tax liabilities remain binding, and a party who acknowledg....
The cause of action for breach of contract arises when the breach occurs, and the suit must be filed within three years from that date as per 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
