TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (10) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,319-8-6, interest and costs on the following facts: Messrs. Dhavate and Rote had filled in a tender for supplies with the Director of Civil Supplies, Kolhapur State. The tender was accepted by two letters dated 9th November 1944 and 8th January 1945. Under the terms of the contract, 10% of the amount payable to Messrs. Dhavate and Rote was to be deducted and paid to them on completion of the contract. The contract was completed in the year 1946. Kolhapur State thereafter merged in the then State of Bombay and was later succeeded by the State of Maharashtra. By a letter dated 27th May 1949 the Civil Supplies Department, Kolhapur wrote to Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Against the said decision, the present appeal has been filed. 5. The only point argued in this appeal before us is as to which of the Articles 62, 120 and 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable to the suit. The contention of the plaintiff Is that Article 145 or in the alternative Article 120 is applicable while the defendants contend that Article 62 is applicable. 6. Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, prescribes a period of three years for a suit for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. The time from which the period begins to run is when the money is received. Article 145 prescribes a period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to it, Article 62 will have no application. This point is directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkata Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1965]2SCR577 . The observations in the judgment of Ayyangar J. at p. 620 (of SCR) = (at p. 1794 of AIR) read as under :-- "Where the defendant occupies a fiduciary relationship towards the plaintiff, it Is clear that Article 62 is inapplicable. Next even if the claim could have been comprehended under the omnibus caption of the English "action for money had and received", still if there are other more specific Articles in the Limitation Act, e.g. Article 96 (mistake), Article 97 (consideration which fails) Article 62 would be inapplicable. Lastly, if the righ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or Article 97 was not applicable and in the absence of any specific article, Article 120 would apply. In that case, money was received by way of security for due performance of a contract and a suit was filed for recovery of the same on completion of the contract. 11. Our attention was invited to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanraj Mills Ltd. v. Laxmi Cotton Traders, Bombay, 60 BomLR 1295 =: AIR 1960 Bom 404. In that case it was merely held that Article 145 was not applicable to the facts which were similar to the facts of this case, but it was not decided as to which of the articles in the first schedule of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable. In an earlier Bombay case, namely. Lingangouda v. Ling....