Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1573 - DELHI HIGH COURTSuit for recovery of money - time limitation - identical orders of dismissal in limine, without even issuing the summons to the respondents/defendants - HELD THAT:- The limitation for a suit for price of goods sold and delivered by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant in each of the suit from which these appeals arise, provided in Article 14 of the Schedule is three years. It was not the case of the appellant/plaintiff herein that the price was agreed to be paid after the expiry of fixed period of credit. The suits were admittedly instituted more than three years after the date of sale and delivery of goods. However the appellant/plaintiff sought to extend the period of limitation by relying upon the payments made by cheques which were dishonoured. The said cheques were of a date before the expiry of period of three years from the date of sale and delivery of goods but were not presented for payment immediately and when presented later, though within the period of their validity, were dishonoured. It is not the case that the cheques were ante-dated. The cheques though dishonoured are deemed to be payment within the meaning of Section 19. Unlike the present case where the appellant/plaintiff, to bring the suit within limitation has to necessarily rely on Section 18 and/or 19 for extension of limitation, Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was not concerned therewith; that was a case of a suit for recovery of amount which was subject matter of cheque simpliciter. Similarly, JHANG BIRADARI HOUSING RESIDENTS SOCIETY VERSUS BHARAT BHUSHAN SACHDEVA AND ORS. [2015 (8) TMI 1542 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was not a suit for recovery of money but a suit for declaration of title to immovable property and the period of limitation provided wherefore commences from the date when the right to sue first accrues, The limitation for a suit for recovery of price of goods as the subject suits, does not commence from the date when the right to sue accrues but commences from the date of sale and delivery of goods and the extension of limitation by issuance of cheques which were dishonoured claimed by the appellant/plaintiff commences from the date when the acknowledgment was so signed and which can only be the date of the cheque and not the date of dishonour of cheque. To hold otherwise, would be doing violation to the language of Section 18. Appeal dismissed.
|