Bombay High Court Allows Summary Suit for Price of Goods Sold and Delivered with Interest at 19.5% per Annum — Limitation Period Extended Due to Court Vacation. Contractual interest rate upheld as per agreement between parties under Article 15 of Limitation Act, 1963.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, Hetal Enterprises, filed a summary suit against the defendant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., for recovery of the price of stationery goods supplied between 16.12.2005 and 19.12.2005. The goods were delivered with due acknowledgment, and the agreement provided a grace period of 7 days, after which interest at 19.5% per annum was payable. The defendant did not dispute receipt of goods or quality but raised a limitation objection, arguing that the suit filed on 5.01.2009 was barred as the first delivery was on 16.12.2005. The court held that the limitation period of three years under Article 15 of the Limitation Act commenced after the 7-day grace period, i.e., from 23.12.2005, and expired during the Christmas vacation (up to 31.12.2008). Since the suit was filed on the reopening day (5.01.2009), it was within limitation. The court also noted that the defendant's acknowledgments of liability under Article 18 of the Limitation Act were sufficient to save limitation. The court allowed the summons for judgment, decreeing the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 19.5% per annum from the date of delivery after the grace period until payment, along with costs.

Headnote

A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 15 - Suit for price of goods sold and delivered - Commencement of limitation after expiry of grace period - Where limitation expires during court vacation, suit filed on reopening day is within limitation (Paras 5-6).

B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 18 - Acknowledgment of liability - Acknowledgment need not be accompanied by promise to pay; it is sufficient to save limitation (Para 4).

C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 35 and 39 - Maintainability of summary suit - Suit based on acknowledgments and receipts is maintainable (Para 4).

D) Contract - Interest - Contractual rate of 19.5% per annum - Plaintiff entitled to interest at contractual rate from date of delivery after grace period (Para 7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the summary suit is barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 19.5% per annum.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Summons for Judgment is made absolute. The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at 19.5% per annum from the date of delivery after the grace period of 7 days until payment, along with costs.

Law Points

  • Summary suit maintainable based on acknowledgment of liability
  • Limitation period extended due to court vacation
  • Interest at contractual rate allowed
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 75

Summons for Judgment No. 70 of 2010 in Summary Suit No. 2640 of 2009

2011-10-07

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Mr. P.L. Mahadik for the Plaintiffs, Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi for the Defendants

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Summary suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff seeks decree for principal amount with interest at 19.5% per annum

Filing Reason

Defendant failed to pay for stationery goods supplied despite delivery and acknowledgment

Issues

Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 15 of the Limitation Act? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the contractual rate of 19.5% per annum?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the suit is within limitation as the limitation period expired during court vacation and suit was filed on reopening day. Defendant argued that the suit is barred by limitation as the first delivery was on 16.12.2005 and suit filed on 5.01.2009 is beyond three years.

Ratio Decidendi

In a suit for price of goods sold and delivered, limitation commences after expiry of the grace period. If limitation expires during court vacation, the suit filed on the reopening day is within limitation. Acknowledgment of liability under Article 18 of the Limitation Act need not be accompanied by a promise to pay.

Judgment Excerpts

The Defendants were willing to pay principal amount only, however, the Plaintiffs’ insistence was also on reasonable interest on the same. As per Article 18 of the Limitation Act, acknowledgment for liability itself is sufficient. The suit therefore based upon such acknowledgments and receipts is maintainable. The limitation period of three years would have expired during the Christmas vacation which was definitely upto 31 December 2008. The Suit, therefore, as filed on the court opening day i.e. 5.01.2009, in the present facts and circumstances, is within limitation.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed Summary Suit No. 2640 of 2009 on 5.01.2009. The defendant was served but did not file a reply to the Summons for Judgment No. 70 of 2010. The matter was adjourned thrice for settlement but could not be settled. By consent, the matter was heard finally on 07.10.2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Limitation Act, 1963: Article 15, Article 18
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 35, Section 39
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Summary Suit for Price of Goods Sold and Delivered with Interest at 19.5% per Annum — Limitation Period Extended Due to Court Vacation. Contractual interest rate upheld as per agreement between parties under Article 15 of L...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Partially Allows MSRTC Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation by Removing 50% Future Prospects Addition for Self-Employed Deceased. The Court held that for self-employed persons, addition towards fu...