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>Court allows appeal for storage and unloading charges claim, finds acknowledgment of liability within limitation period.</h1> <h3>South Eastern Roadways, Bombay Versus U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. and Ors.</h3> South Eastern Roadways, Bombay Versus U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - TMI Issues:Claim for storage and unloading charges, Limitation of the claim, Effect of acknowledgment in writing on limitation, Interest on storage charges.Analysis:The plaintiff appealed against the dismissal of a suit claiming storage and unloading charges plus interest totaling &8377; 54,957. The plaintiff, a firm registered under the Partnership Act, transported goods for a Corporation from Uttar Pradesh to Thane. The Corporation failed to pay storage and unloading charges, leading to the suit. The Corporation argued the claim was barred by limitation, which was the main issue in the appeal.The court analyzed Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which deals with acknowledgment in writing affecting expired liabilities. The plaintiff provided storage beyond the free period mentioned in the consignment notes, justifying the claim for storage charges. The court found that the consignment notes governed the contract of carriage, rejecting the argument that the rate and amount payable were not proved. However, the plaintiff failed to prove expenses for unloading charges, creating a discrepancy.Regarding the limitation issue, the court examined Ex. 35, a communication from the Corporation acknowledging the liability. The court held that Ex. 35, when correlated with Ex. 37, constituted an acknowledgment of liability, bringing the claim within limitation. Even if Ex. 35 did not qualify as an acknowledgment, the court invoked S. 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act to uphold the claim within limitation.The plaintiff also claimed past interest on storage charges at 12% per annum. The court noted that the suit was not frivolous and commercial in nature, justifying the interest claimed. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal of the suit, and awarded the plaintiff a sum of &8377; 51,732 along with interest at 12% per annum on part of the amount. The remaining claims were disallowed, with costs apportioned accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
