TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissed Suit: Lack of Authorization & Time-Barred Filing</h1> <h3>State of Haryana Versus Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.</h3> The suit was dismissed as it was time-barred and not signed by a duly authorized person. The plaintiff failed to establish authorization for filing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the plaint of the suit has been signed and verified by a duly authorised personRs.2. Whether the suit is barred by timeRs.3. Whether the agreement draft of which was forwarded by the defendant vide letter dated May 14, 1971, after appending his signatures, could not be accepted by the plaintiff on October 16, 1975Rs.4. Whether there was an agreement to delete Clause 5 of the draft agreement sent by the defendant, either by specific agreement or by estoppelRs. If so, to what effectRs.5. Whether the plaintiff had no right to conclude the agreement on October 16, 1975Rs.6. Whether the plaintiff is bound by the policy decision contained in Engineering Association of India's letter dated 13/15th Sept. 1969 (Ext. P-11)Rs.7. Whether the amount of Rs. 75,000 received by the defendant towards the cost of the feasibility/project report is refundable to the plaintiff along with interest @9.5% p.a.Rs.8. Relief.Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1: Whether the plaint of the suit has been signed and verified by a duly authorised personRs.The court found that the plaint was not signed and verified by a duly authorised person. The plaintiff did not produce any government resolution or document to show that the Director of Industries, Shri Dhanendra Kumar, was authorised by the State of Haryana to file the suit and sign the plaint. The witness, Mr. Prem Nath Wadhwa, only identified Dhanendra Kumar's signature but did not claim Kumar was authorised to sign the plaint. Therefore, Issue No. 1 was answered in the negative.Issue No. 2: Whether the suit is barred by timeRs.The court determined that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff's cause of action arose when the defendant refused to pay back the amount on 6-10-1976, and the suit should have been filed by 15-10-1979. However, the suit was filed on 30-9-1980, making it beyond the three-year limitation period. The plaintiff's argument that a letter dated 29-8-1979 extended the limitation period was rejected, as the letter did not acknowledge a subsisting liability. Therefore, Issue No. 2 was answered in the negative.Issue No. 3: Whether the agreement draft of which was forwarded by the defendant vide letter dated May 14, 1971, after appending his signatures, could not be accepted by the plaintiff on October 16, 1975Rs.The court found that the agreement draft sent by the defendant on 14-5-1971 was not accepted by the plaintiff, who sought modifications. The defendant withdrew from the agreement on 3-10-1974, making it invalid for the plaintiff to accept it on 16-10-1975. Therefore, Issue No. 3 was answered affirmatively in favor of the defendant.Issue No. 4: Whether there was an agreement to delete Clause 5 of the draft agreement sent by the defendant, either by specific agreement or by estoppelRs. If so, to what effectRs.The court found no agreement to delete Clause 5 of the draft agreement. The plaintiff did not act in reliance on the agreement to its detriment. Therefore, the defendant was not estopped from withdrawing the clause. Issue No. 4 was answered in the negative.Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff had no right to conclude the agreement on October 16, 1975Rs.The court held that the plaintiff had no right to conclude the agreement on 16-10-1975 after the defendant had withdrawn it on 3-10-1974. Therefore, Issue No. 5 was answered affirmatively in favor of the defendant.Issue No. 6: Whether the plaintiff is bound by the policy decision contained in Engineering Association of India's letter dated 13/15th Sept. 1969 (Ext. P-11)Rs.The court found that the letter from the Engineering Association of India was not binding on the plaintiff. The letter was part of the defendant's correspondence and not an independent document from the plaintiff. Therefore, Issue No. 6 was answered in the negative.Issue No. 7: Whether the amount of Rs. 75,000 received by the defendant towards the cost of the feasibility/project report is refundable to the plaintiff along with interest @9.5% p.a.Rs.The court acknowledged that the amount of Rs. 75,000 was refundable to the plaintiff as the project was not implemented. However, since the suit was barred by limitation and not signed by a duly authorised person, no decree could be passed. Therefore, Issue No. 7 was answered affirmatively but with no relief granted.Relief:The suit was dismissed as it was barred by the law of limitation and was not signed and verified by a duly authorised person. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.Conclusion:The suit was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred and not signed by a duly authorised person. The court found that the defendant was not liable to refund the amount due to the expiration of the limitation period and procedural deficiencies in the plaint.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
