TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust confess that after half an hour of arguments by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff I am really unable to make much head or tail of the case as is being argued by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Sometime it is averred that the 17 bills which are the subject matter of the suit and the present appeal were in fact subject matter of an arbitration proceedings initiated by the appellant/plaintiff and for which there is an Award in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, on other occasions it is said that there are no arbitration proceedings and in fact arbitration proceedings were with respect to another contract and in execution proceedings of the Award in those other proceedings the amount of the subject bills was sought to be attached, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,49,729/- was made in the suit. 4. The respondent/defendant/UOI inter alia contended that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also contended that in another contract of the UOI with the appellant/plaintiff, there was an Award in favour of the UOI and in execution proceedings the amounts of the 17 bills were sought to be attached, and which attachment order was declined. It was pleaded that this cannot amount to an acknowledgment to extend the limitation as per the provision of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Before I turn to the basic issue which has been decided against the appellant/plaintiff by the trial Court of the suit having been barred by limitation, I must note that if I accept the statement made by counsel o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen the plaintiff has not at all proved any document to establish this fact and the defendant who is Union of India has also not trailed behind as the defendant has also not filed any document in this regard to prove the 4 question of limitation which otherwise goes to the root of the matter. Thus the documents and the pleadings inter se the parties tend me to take judicial notice which otherwise are not disputed and rather admitted by the parties. 18. The plaintiff before filing the suit had issued a notice under section 80 of CPC to the Defendant. This notice is dated 17.4.1990. Relevant para 3 of the notice reads as follows: In view of the aforesaid, the said amount of Rs. 2,09,503/- because refundable to our aforesaid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present suit was filed, the plaintiff slept over his rights and did not bother to get his rights agitated, thirdly, the plaintiff should have issued a notice to the defendant or should have initiated legal proceeding for recovery of the amount of the 17 bills but for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he did not take any action, fourthly, the plaintiff should have got the matter referred to the arbitrator for getting the dispute settled. Thus in view of this, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that because of fault on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff was not in a position to file the suit. The plea of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant neither made any payment not referred the matter to arbi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le. Since in this case bills are of the year 1978, acknowledgment at best could have been on or before 29.4.1981. Any alleged acknowledgment of 1985, cannot be an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 8. In my opinion, the present suit as also the appeal is nothing but a gross waste of judicial time and an endeavour to overreach the Court. In fact, I must once again put on record that there was lack of clarity in the arguments as were being urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as about 8 to 10 times different stands were taken up time and again either with respect to the present suit and appeal being filed for the first time for the 17 bills and on the other hand alternatively stating that in fact th....