Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
State Of Kerala v. T.M. Chacko
[2000] 9 SCC 722
JUDGES: M. M. Punchhi and K. Ramaswamy
Date of Decision: 14-07-1993
FACTS:-
In an auction of forest produce, the respondent was successful bidder and the bid amount was paid by the respondent. The respondent was to collect and remove the whole forest produce by 31-3-1974. Part of it was collected and removed by him before 21-2-1974, when fire broke out in the reserved forest which also destroyed the remaining forest produce. The respondent made representations to the Forest Department seeking reduction of the bid amount on the ground that his coupe was destroyed by the wild fire. On 27-6-1974, the Government instead of reducing the bid amount thought it fit to grant further time of 45 days to enable him to remove the forest produce (Ex B4). The respondent neither paid the balance of the bid amount nor removed the remaining forest produce. On 19-9-1974, the Divisional Forest Officer intimated to the respondent that as he failed to satisfy the conditions of the contract and remit the amount due to the Government, it was cancelled and the produce left on the site was confiscated and ordered to be auctioned at the risk and loss of the respondent (Ex A8). The respondent after notice u/s 80 of CPC; filed a suit on 28-7-1977 claiming compensation including refund of the bid amount. The appellant denied that it is liable for any compensation and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act. But trial Court decreed the suit considering it within the limitation period and High Court confirmed by the same. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, appellant filed this appeal with special leave.
ISSUE:-
- Whether Exhibits B-4(Government Order) and A-8 (copy of proceeding by Divisional Forest Copy) do not contain any acknowledgment of the liability by the Appellant?
- Whether suit filed by the respondent was barred by the limitation, if there is acknowledgment as to the liability u/s 18 of the act?
JUDGEMENT:-
The Hon’ble Court observed that for treating a writing signed by the party as an acknowledgment, the person acknowledging must be conscious of his liability and the commitment should be made towards that liability.
In the present case neither the claim of refund of bid amount was under consideration of the appellant nor can Ex B4 or Ex A8 be treated as acknowledgement of the liability of that claim of the respondent. In Ex B4 and A8 the claim of the respondent for recovery of the bid amount was not under consideration. Therefore, S 18 of the Limitation Act cannot be called in aid to compute fresh limitation from the date of Ex A8 i.e. 19-9-1974. That being the position, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
The Hon’ble court, therefore, rejected the contention that in view of the fact that period to perform the contract had been extended by the State of Kerala till 10.8.1974, the date for seeking refund should also be taken as extended till 10.8.1974.Therefore, there would be no cause of action for the suit itself. It is a self-defeating argument.
HELD:-
Thus held, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the trial court is set aside.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
