Limitation in invoice recovery claims turns on specific articles, Section 14 exclusion, and TDS-linked extension only for referable invoices.

In a recovery suit based on invoices, limitation was held to run from the date of the work done or the invoice, so the specific article for such claims applied rather than the residuary provision. Time spent in winding-up proceedings was not excluded, because Section 14 requires a prior proceeding in a forum unable to entertain the matter for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect, and winding-up and debt recovery are distinct proceedings. A timely TDS payment was treated as payment on account of debt only for the invoices to which it was referable, extending limitation under Section 19 for those invoices alone. The balance invoices remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for recovery of money based on invoices was governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the time spent in winding-up proceedings could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (iii) Whether deposit of TDS and issuance of the TDS certificate extended limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for recovery of money based on invoices was governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The claim arose from work done and invoices raised for services rendered. For such a claim, limitation runs from the date of the work done or invoice and not from the subsequent denial in reply to a legal notice. The residuary article applies only where no specific period is provided. Since a specific article governed the claim, the general residuary provision had no application.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by Article 18, not Article 113, and the claim was not fully within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the time spent in winding-up proceedings could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 14 applies where a prior proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence in good faith in a court that could not entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a similar defect, and the matter in issue in both proceedings must be the same. Winding-up proceedings and a civil recovery action operate in distinct spheres, because winding-up is concerned with inability to pay debts and not recovery of a specific debt. The statutory requirements for exclusion of time were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: Section 14 did not apply to exclude the time spent in the winding-up proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether deposit of TDS and issuance of the TDS certificate extended limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: A TDS deposit constitutes payment on account of a debt when it is referable to the amount payable by the debtor, and such payment can give rise to a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 if made before expiry of the prescribed period. On the facts, the TDS certificate dated 24.09.2015 related to two invoices and extended limitation only for those invoices. The remaining invoices had already become time-barred because their TDS had been deducted earlier.

Conclusion: Limitation was extended only for the invoices covered by the TDS deposit on 24.09.2015, and the remaining invoices remained barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the invoices linked to the timely TDS deposit, while the balance claim remained barred by limitation, resulting in partial monetary relief with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: In a recovery suit based on invoices, limitation is governed by the specific article applicable to work done, exclusion under Section 14 requires identity of matter and inability to entertain the prior proceeding for a jurisdictional or similar defect, and a timely TDS payment may extend limitation under Section 19 only for the debt to which it is referable.

---