Dismissed

Punjab State Warehousing Corp Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Shiv Shankar Rice Mills & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2015RSA/3489/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for recovery, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than four years after the last acknowledgment of liability, with no substantial question of law arising.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the suit was held to be time-barred by law of limitation.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

RSA No.3489 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.3489 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2015

¶5

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Limited and another

¶6

... Appellants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Shiv Shankar Rice Mills and another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present:Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M.No.8081-C of 2014

¶14

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

RSA No.3489 of 2014 (O&M)

¶16

This regular second appeal is directed at the instance of appellants-plaintiffs against the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the suit for recovery of ` 4,05,365/- along with interest @ 21% per annum has been dismissed on the ground that suit ex facie was time barred by law of limitation.

¶17

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs contends that the limitation would start from 30.09.2004 vide Ex.P10, when the Government of India issued letter to the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department for the final revised rates of gunny bags for the custom miling for the

¶18

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.28 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

RSA No.3489 of 2014 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

crop year 2003-04 by applying 60% cut. The agreement between appellants and the respondents admittedly was executed on 05.10.2002(Ex.P4). As per Ex.P5, the last receipt executed by the respondents-defendants was on 16.11.2002. Thereafter, there is no acknowledgment by the respondents, admitting the liability of the suit, though at the best could have been filed within a period of three years from November, 2002 yet the appellants-plaintiffs did not file the suit and the same was filed in December, 2006 i.e. after more than 04 years.

¶22

As per the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, resultant rice was delivered upto 25.03.2003. Even from this date also, the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation and there is no acknowledgment by the defendants as envisaged under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

¶23

Both the Courts below have rendered a finding of fact and law based on the oral and documentary evidence. Even the suit ex facie was barred by law of limitation. There is no illegality much less perversity in the findings of the Courts below.

¶24

No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of this appeal.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶27

January 23, 2015 savita

¶28

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.28 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Punjab State Warehousing Corp Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Shiv Shankar Rice Mills & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab State Warehousing Corp Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Shiv Shankar Rice Mills & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamidi Vs Hasan Mohd. and Ors.

Satbir Vs Rameshwar Dass and Ors.

Gurcharan Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh & Ors.

Gurudwara Nirmal Dera Vs Amarjit Kaur etc.

Karamjit Kaur Vs Manjit Singh and Ors.

Bachittar Singh and Ors. Vs Mohinder Kaur and Ors.