The present suit is filed by the State of Haryana and on the title of the suit it has been mentioned "State of Haryana through Director Industries, Haryana", without mentioning the name of the said Director and the plaint shows that one Dhanendra Kumar has signed the plaint and he has given his designation as Director of Industries, State of Haryana below, his signature. The defendant has raised a specific contention in the plaint that the plaint is not signed and verified by a duly authorised person of the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiff one Mr. Prem Nath Wadhwa has entered the witness box. He has deposed that he is working as an Assistant in the Industries Department. He identified the signatures of Dhanendra Kumar and he has also deposed that he was Director of Industries of the State of Haryana. But he does not claim in his examination-in-chief that the Government of Haryana had authorised Shri Dhanendra Kumar, the Director of Industries, to file the present suit and to sign the present suit on behalf of the State of Haryana. No government resolution or any document is produced to show that the Director of Industries Shri Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to file the present suit. What this witness is doing is only identifying and proving the signature of Dhanendra Kumar but he nowhere makes a claim that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign the plaint on behalf of the State of Haryana. In the cross-examination this witness has deposed as under:
" The plaint and power of attorney were not signed by Dhanendra Kumar in my presence. I did not see any document to say that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised to file this suit and to sign the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff or to engage a counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit."
If the above admission of the said witness coupled with the fact that he does not make a claim in his examination-in-chief that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign and verify the suit and in the absence of production of any documents how that the State of Haryana had authorized the Director of Industries to file the present suit, it is not possible to hold that the plaint has been signed and filed by duly authorised agent of the State of Haryana. Therefore, in these circumstances, Issue No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. No. 768 of 1980
Decided On: 15.09.1995
State of Haryana Vs. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.D. Pandit, J.
Citation: AIR 1996 Delhi 198
1. plaintiff State of Haryana established an Industrial Committee on 29-5-1969 to suggest ways and means for speedy, and intensive industrialisation of the State of Haryana. On the recommendation of the said Committee the State of Haryana had decided to provide special incentives to industries to be established in the State of Haryana.
2. Defendant M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. is a limited Company and they decided to have a plant to manufacture hot rolled steel strips skelp. For the said purpose they got prepared a project report front M/s. M.M. Dastoor and Company of Calcutta which was an approved company by the State of Haryana.
3. Defendant approached the plaintiff Government of Haryana in the year 1969 to subsidise the cost of the project report for manufacture of hot rolled steel strips. M/s. M.M. Dastoor & Company, Calcutta, had charged for the Project Report an amount of Rs 1,50,000/-. plaintiff State of Haryana agreed to subsidies the same to the extent of 50 per cent and they, accordingly issued Bank Draft on 31-3-1970 infavour of the defendant for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- and defendant also issued a receipt on 9-4-1970 for the amount of Rs. 74,955/- after deducting Rs. 45/- towards the bank charges.
4. It is averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had advanced the said 50 per cent of the cost of the project on clear understanding and undertaking that the project will be implemented within a period of six months and in the event of implementation of the said project they were to have the shares of the said amount but in the event the said project was not implemented then the amount of Rs. 75,000/- would be refunded with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. It is further averred by the plaintiff that the defendant had obtained a license from the Government of India under the Industries Development Regulation Act, 1951 and had also moved an application on 14-6-1969 for issuance of a "Letter of Intent" which is a condition prerequisite for grant of a licence. The said Letter of Intent was issued on 1-4-1970 and it was valid for six months. The defendant got the said letter of intent extended from time to time till 31-7-1973 but thereafter the defendants did not get the same extended and ultimately the Government of India cancelled the same on 15-2-1975. plaintiff has further averred that by not extending the said Letter of Intent and not taking any steps for implementation of the said project the defendant was liable to refund the amount. Therefore, plaintiff issued a notice on 7-9-1976 calling upon the defendant to refund the amount of Rs. 75,000/- with 9.5% interest. The said notice was replied by the defendant wherein defendant refused to return the said amount and, Therefore, plaintiff has filed the present suit on 30-9-1980 to get a decree for Rs. 1,50,000/- and future interest at the rate of 9% on the same.
5. The claim of the plaintiff is resisted by the defendant by filing written, statement. It is contended by the defendant that the plaint is not signed and verified by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff and, consequently, the said plaint deserves to be rejected. It is further contended that the plaintiff's suit is barred by the law of limitation. It is contended that the Government of Haryana had taken a decision to give special incentives to the industries in the State of Haryana and as per the letter issued by the Engineering Association of India on 13/15-9-1969 the incentives which the State of Haryana had agreed to give were published. As per the said letter the Government of Haryana had agreed to meet 50 per cent of the cost of the Feasibility Report in case of selected industrial projects prepared by the approved agency and that contribution was to be covered into the share capital of the Government in the event the project being implemented and in case the project was not implemented then the said report was to become the property of the Government. Because of the said offer given by the State of Haryana defendant had decided to take up the project of manufacturing Hot Rolled Steel Strips skelp and the project report was also obtained from M/s. M.M. Dastoor and Company of Calcutta, which was an approved agency of the plaintiff. Defendant has categorically denied that there was any definite understanding or undertaking that the project was to be implemented within a period of six months failing which he was to return the amount of Rs. 75,000/- with interest @ 9.5% per annum.
6. It is contended that when the said project report was prepared it was found that lot of electrical energy was required for implementing the said project and there was shortage of electric supply and, Therefore, they could not go on with the project but the project report is not with them and the project report has become the property of the Government of Haryana. The defendant had never agreed to refund with interest 50 per cent of the cost of the project report which was paid by the State of Haryana.
7. It is further contended that by the letter dated 13-1-1974 the defendant had made it quite clear that the terms of refunding Rs 75,000/- with 9% interest mentioned in the Agreement dated 31-3-1970 were net acceptable to the defendant and the defendant had withdrawn the said Agreement of 31-3-1970, which was not signed by the plaintiff even till that date. Thus, according to the defendant, they themselves had incurred all expenses in the said project and the project could not be carried on for no fault on their part. Defendant was never liable to return the amount of 50 per cent of the cost of project report as the said amount was to be converted into shares in favor of the Government of Haryana if the project was to be implemented anil if the project was not implemented then the project report was to become the property of the Government of Haryana. Thus, it is contended by the defendant that the defendant does not owe anything to the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of all the above contentions it is contended by the defendant that that plaintiff's suit be dismissed with costs.
8. In view of the pleadings as indicated above, my learned predecessor had settled the issue. Those issues and my findings thereon for the reasons hereinafter stated are as under:
1. Whether the plaint of the suit has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person? No
2. Whether the suit is barred by time Yes
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, 1975? Yes -- In view of defendants letter dated 30-9-1974
4. Whether there was by agreement to delete Clause 5 of the draft agreement sent by the defendant whether by specific agreement or by estoppels ?If so, to what effect? No
5. Whether the plaintiff had no right to conclude the agreement on October 16, 1975? In view of defendants Setter dated 30-9-1974 plaintiff had no right to conclude the said agreement on 16-10-1975.
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)? No
7. Whether the amount of Rs. 75,000 received by the defendant towards cost of the feasibility/ Project report is refundable to the plaintiff along with interest @9.5% p.a.? Yes. But as plaintiffs claim is barred by limitation no decree could be passed.
8. Relief. As per final order.
ISSUE NO. 1
9. The present suit is filed by the State of Haryana and on the title of the suit it has been mentioned "State of Haryana through Director Industries, Haryana", without mentioning the name of the said Director and the plaint shows that one Dhanendra Kumar has signed the plaint and he has given his designation as Director of Industries, State of Haryana below, his signature. The defendant has raised a specific contention in the plaint that the plaint is not signed and verified by a duly authorised person of the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiff one Mr. Prem Nath Wadhwa has entered the witness box. He has deposed that he is working as an Assistant in the Industries Department. He identified the signatures of Dhanendra Kumar and he has also deposed that he was Director of Industries of the State of Haryana. But he does not claim in his examination-in-chief that the Government of Haryana had authorised Shri Dhanendra Kumar, the Director of Industries, to file the present suit and to sign the present suit on behalf of the State of Haryana. No government resolution or any document is produced to show that the Director of Industries Shri Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to file the present suit. What this witness is doing is only identifying and proving the signature of Dhanendra Kumar but he nowhere makes a claim that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign the plaint on behalf of the State of Haryana. In the cross-examination this witness has deposed as under:
" The plaint and power of attorney were not signed by Dhanendra Kumar in my presence. I did not see any document to say that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised to file this suit and to sign the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff or to engage a counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in the present suit."
If the above admission of the said witness coupled with the fact that he does not make a claim in his examination-in-chief that Dhanendra Kumar was authorised by the State of Haryana to sign and verify the suit and in the absence of production of any documents how that the State of Haryana had authorized the Director of Industries to file the present suit, it is not possible to hold that the plaint has been signed and filed by duly authorised agent of the State of Haryana. Therefore, in these circumstances, Issue No. 1 will have to be answered in the negative.
ISSUE No. 2:
10. There is no dispute over the fact that the defendant was paid the amount of Rs.75,000/- towards the half cost of the project report prepared by M/s. M. M Dastoor & Company of Calcutta by cheque on 31-3-1970. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant had issued a receipt in favor of the State of Haryana on 9-4-1970 for having received the bank draft for Rs. 75,000/-. The said amount was paid by the Government of Haryana, Industries Department, as per the order-cum-letter dated 28-4-1970, which is Exhibit P/5. The said letter is addressed by the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industries Department to the defendant and the said letter reads as under:
"Reference your memo No. LMI Ind.52I-69/IPI/4145-A dated the 25th of Nov. 1969, on the above subject.
2. Sanction of the Governor of Haryana is accorded to the incurring of an expenditure of Rs.75,000/- to subsidising the cost of Project Report for the manufacture of Hot Rolled Steel Strip to be obtained by M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. which is to the extent of 50% of the total cost estimated to be Rs. 1,50,000/ -subject to the condition that in case the project is eventually implemented, the amount spent by the Government on the feasibility study would be converted into Government's share capital.
3. The amount involved will be met from, the head "96 Capital Outlay-- Industrial and Economic Development (Plan) Establishment of Public Sector Projects/Preparation of feasibility reports for prospective industries" during the year 1969-70.
4. This issue with the concurrence of the Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O.No. 11696-11700-IFD-69 dated 14/15th January, 1970."
The above contents of the said letter as well as per the admitted position if the project which the defendant had undertaken was implemented then the said amount of Rs. 75,000/- was to be converted into government's share capital in the said industry. But, unfortunately, the said letter does not mention as to what was to happen in case the said project was not implemented. But merely because the said letter does not specifically mention as to what was to happen in case the project was not implemented, it could not be said that the amount paid by the Government was paid gratuitously to the defendant. When the letter said that in case the project was implemented the amount was to be converted into government's share in the capital, the natural corollary of the same would be that in case the said project was not implemented then the amount was to be returned to government. Therefore, the cause of action for the Government to claim back the amount would arise when it is made known to the government that the said project was not to be implemented. The plaintiff has clearly averred in the plaint itself that in order to have the said project implemented the defendant was to obtain a letter of intent and he had accordingly, obtained the same on 1-4-1970 and the said letter of intent was not extended by the defendant up to 31-7-1973. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff that the Government of India had ultimately cancelled the same on 15-2-1975.
11. But, admittedly, plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant on 7-9-1976 and by his letter dated 6-10-1977 the defendant had refused to pay back the said amount. That Idler of the defendant is produced by the plaintiff and it is at Exhibit P/8. In (his letter the defendant had categorically contended that he was not at all bound to return the said amount and the said amount was to be converted- into the share capital of the government in the event of the project being implemented and in the event of failure to implement the project the project report was to become the property of the Government of Haryana. Therefore, this letter dated 6-10-1976 would be the cause of action for suing the defendant as he had refused to pay the amount in question. This letter dated 6-10-1976 must have been received by the plaintiff in any case, before 15-10-1976, which would be the date on which the time will begin to run against the plaintiff for filing the suit against the defendant to recover the amount in question. This being a money claim and as the plaintiff was demanding the refund of money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, the time will run from the date the defendant's refusal to pay the amount came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and that date will be 35-10-1976 and, Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed before 15-10-1979. This suit is filed on 30-9-1980. Therefore, it is obviously beyond the period of limitation of three years.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Kathuria has urged before me that by the letter dated 29-8-1979 the period of limitation gets extended for further period of three years from the date of the said letter and, consequently, the present suit would be within limitation as it is filed within three years from the date of the said letter. The said letter is produced on record and it is at Exhibit P/9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Kathuria wants to use this letter as an acknowledgment but in order to make a document an acknowledgment the words used in the document must indicate the existence of the jural relationship, between the parties such as that of a debtor ad creditor and it must appear that the statement is made with intention to admit such jural relationship. No doubt such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of admission and need not be expressed in words. Though the admission need not be express, it must be made in circumstances and words from which the Courts can reasonably infer that the person making the admission intended to infer to a subsisting liability as at the date of the said statement. The principle of acknowledgment has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vilaiama v. Sivathanu MANU/SC/0379/1979 : [1980]1SCR354
"Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act one of the essential requirements for a valid acknowledgment is that the writing concerned must contend that admission of a subsisting liability. A mere admission of a past liability is not sufficient to constitute such an acknowledgment. Thus, the release deed executed by the original mortgagees stating, in effect, that the mortgages had been established by payment of the mortgage debts in entirety by the redeeming co-mortgagor, do not amount to acknowledgements of a subsisting liability, which could give a fresh starting point of limitation."
13. Thus, when the statement of liability is coupled with a statement that it has discharged a subsisting liability on the date cannot be inferred. The statement must be taken as a whole and the intention must be gathered by reading the document as a whole and not by confining attention to a particular portion of it. It is wrong to dissect the statement into two parts. The first part containing an admission of the liability and the second part the mode in which it was discharged. If this document Exhibit P/9, dated 29-8-1979 is read as a whole then it is very difficult to believe that the said letter is containing any acknowledgement on the part of the defendant so as to extend the period of limitation. In the beginning of the said letter has been clearly mentioned that when the show cause notice dated 7-8-1976 was issued to them they had replied by the letter dated 6-10-1976 that there could not be recovery of the amount from them. Then in this letter in para Nos. 1 and 2 it has been stated as under:
(1) The aforesaid amount of Rs. 75,000/-was extended to us by the Statement Government as subsidy (not as a loan) in the financial year 1969-70. The said subsidy was paid in accordance with the recommendations of the Industrialists Committee constituted by the State Government which recommended. Inter alia, that assistance should be given to the prospective entrepreneurs for promotion of industry within the State of Haryana irrespective of the location of the project within the State and recommended that for intensive industrialisation, the State Government should subsidies 50% of the cost in respect of feasibility studies. The necessary funds were met out of the budget provision for the financial year 1969-70 under the provisions of the Plan Scheme "Establishment of Public Sector Projects/Preparation of feasibility reports.
(2) There was no condition attached to the subsidy at the time when the same was extended by the State Government that the amount will have to be refunded by the prospective entrepreneurs in the event of non-implementation of the project. All that was required was that in the event of the project being implemented the subsidy would be converted into equity capital, and in the event of non-implementation of the project the feasibility report will become the property of the State Government. Guidelines in this behalf were issued and the same were circulated through respective Chambers of Commerce, and we have already sent a copy of the said guidelines received by us through Engineering Association of India. For your ready reference we enclose herewith one more copy of the said guidelines (Annexure A).
14. Then it has been further mentioned in the said letter that the defendant had incurred expenditure in all of Rs. 9,45,000/- out of which only Rs. 75,000/- were paid by the Government of Haryana and the non-implementation of the plant, was not on account of any default on their part and, Therefore in these circumstances, they were not liable to pay any amount and the recovery of the amount should be waived.
15. Thus, it is the stand of the defendant that they were never to refund the amount and the claim of the refund amount made by the Government was not proper. No doubt they have used the word that the recovery should be waived because after all the claim was made by the government and the government could force the recovery by having recourse to law of recovering the dues as revenue dues. But merely because of the same it could not be said that the defendant has acknowledged its liability to pay the amount. Therefore, I am unable to hold that the said letter in any way extends the period of limitation in favor of the plaintiff. I, Therefore, answer Issue No. 2 in the negative.
16. The Department of Industries had forwarded the draft of agreement to the defendant after the payment of the amount to the defendant and had asked to sign the said draft typed on a stamp paper after duly signing the same in order to be counter-signed by the plaintiff. According to the defendant had written the said agreement as per the draft, which is marked as Exhibit A and was also signed by the defendant on 14-3-1971. The said draft was sent along with a forwarding letter by the defendant by its letter dated 14-5-1971. But, though that draft was received by the officers of the plaintiff, admittedly, the same was not accepted and another letter was written by the Industries Department to the plaintiff suggesting certain modifications and alterations in the said agreement. When this letter is sent by the plaintiff it is quite obvious that the said agreement was not acceptable to the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant had sent the letter dated 30-10-1974 informing the plaintiff that Clause No. 5 of the said draft be deleted and Clause No. 3 be suitably amended. This letter is produced by the plaintiff and it is exhibited as Exhibit P/12. When the original draft was sent by the plaintiff on 14-5-1971 the same was not accepted immediately by the plaintiff (defendant?) and plaintiff was informed by the letter Exhibit P/12 on 3-10-1974 that the defendant was not accepting Clause No. 5 of the said agreement and was also seeking suitable amendment of Clause No. 3. Therefore, once the defendant had withdrawn from the said agreement dated 3-10-1974 by F.xhi-bi; P/12 it was not open for the plaintiff, who had earlier himself rejected the same to sign the same on 16-10-1975. It is also very pertinent to note that the plaintiff has also not informed the defendant by any letter saying that the said agreement has been concluded and finalised by him on such and such date and that the copy of the same was being sent to the defendant in pursuance of acceptance of the said agreement. When the original agreement was signed and sent by the defendant to the plaintiff it was in the form of an offer and plaintiff was to accept the said offer within a reasonable time and before the defendant withdraws the same. But the plaintiff had not acted accordingly and, thus, gave ample opportunity to the defendant to withdraw that offer from May 1971 till Oct. 1974. Therefore, in view of the above considerations. I hold that it was not open for the plaintiff to treat the said agreement as a valid and binding agreement by signing the same on 16-10-1975 after the same was withdrawn by letter dated 6-10-1974.
17. There could not be any obstacle for the defendant to withdraw Clause No. 5 from the said agreement. Merely because he had signed and forwarded the said agreement with his letter dated 14-5-1971, it could not be said that defendant was estopped from withdrawing the same and that he was prevented by the principle of estoppel from withdrawing the same. The principle of Estoppel will come into play only in case the plaintiff had accepted the said agreement and had acted in pursuance of the said agreement and in detriment to its own interest. It could not be said that because of the said agreement the plaintiff was in any way mislead and plaintiff had acted detrimental to his own interest and, consequently, the defendant could not be allowed in Oct. 1974 to withdraw from the said agreement. Therefore, in view of the above discussion I answer Issue Nos. 3 to 5 accordingly.
ISSUE Nos. 6 and 7:
18. The defendant has specifically pleaded in his additional pleas in para No. 21 that the Engineering Association of India (Northern Region) had brought to the notice of industrialists by its letter dated 13/15-9-1969 the various details of incentives and concessions available in Punjab and Haryana and he has given in the said para all those details mentioned in the said letter. In his replication the plaintiff has replied that the concessions and incentives, if any, declared by the said Association were not binding on the plaintiff and plaintiff had never given its consent to the said concessions. No doubt in the said replication it has been mentioned that the copy of the said letter was not available with the plaintiff but, according to the learned counsel for (he defendant, as a matter of fact, plaintiff had produced the copy of the said letter along with the documents produced at the time of filing of the documents. Learned counsel for the defendant urged before me vehemently that when that document is produced by the plaintiff himself then it should be held that the said document is binding on the plaintiff. But merely because the document is produced by the party it could not be said that that document is a document of the party. No doubt when that document is produced by a party, the party producing that document cannot avoid Explanation of the said document. But that does not mean that that document is a document of that party. If the record is seen carefully, it would be quite clear that the said document, which is, marked as Exhibit P/11, is not an 'independent document produced by the plaintiff. The said document Exhibit P/11 is a part of the documents of Exhibit P/9 and, thus, two documents, viz. Exhibit P/10 and Exhibit P. 11, are the Annexure A of the letter sent by the defendant on 29-8-1979, which is marked as Exhibit P/9. In this letter in sub-para 2 of para No. (2) it has been mentioned as under:--
"There was no condition attached to the subsidy at the time when the same was extended by the State Government. That amount will have to be refunded by the prospective entrepreneurs in the event of non-implementation of project. All that was required was that in the event of project being implemented subsidy would be converted into equity capital and in the event of non-implementation of the project the feasibility report will become the property of the State Government. Guidelines in this behalf were issued and the same were circulated through respective Chambers of Commerce and we have already sent a copy of the guidelines received by us through Engineering Association of India. For your ready reference we enclosed herewith one more copy of the said guidelines (Annexure A)."
19. The Annexure A mentioned in the above para are the documents Exhibits P/10 and P/11. Therefore, documents, forming Exhibit P/10 and Exhibit P/11 are part of document marked Exhibit P/9, i.e. the letter dated 9-8-1979 which was sent by the defendant. Therefore, it could not be said that this letter dated 13/15-9-1969 sent by the Engineering Association of India (Northern Region) containing the alleged details of the incentives and concessions available in Punjab and Haryana are, as a matter of fact, concessions given by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, that Government could not be said to be a document of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is bound by the said document. Learned counsel for the defendant has cited before me number of authorities saying that the admissions of a party are binding on the party and as this document is produced by the plaintiff, plaintiff has admitted the same and plaintiffs bound by the same. But, as stated earlier, that document is not at all a document of the plaintiff but it is a part of the defendant's letter and it could not be said, that the said document is containing an admission by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is bound by the same.
20. No doubt in the letter dated 26-2-1970, marked Exhibit PW5, by which the plaintiff was paid the amount of Rs. 75,000/-. It has not been specifically mentioned that plaintiff was to return the amount with 9.5% interest but the said letter also does not mention that in case of non-implementation of the project the project was to become the property of the State Government and the amount paid by the State Government was not refundable by the entrepreneur. It only mentions that in the eventuality of the implementation of the project the amount spent by the Government on the feasibility study could be converted into Government's share capital. If at all the Government policy was to become the owner of the project report in the eventuality of non-implementation of the project then the Government would have specifically mentioned the same in this letter Exhibit P.W. 5 dated 26-2-1970. The amount was spent by the Government in order to give incentive to the industries and when the industry was not to be established then naturally the Government will expect the refund of the amount given by way of subsidy. The defendant has not produced any document by way of actual Government policy or Government resolution saying that the Government had taken decision not to recover the amount given to the entrepreneurs who were to establish industries in the State. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, I hold that the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff was bound by the policy contained in the Engineering Association's letter and that the Government was not entitled to get back the amount of Rs. 75,000/- is not tenable. I, Therefore, answer Issue No. 6 in the negative.
21. From the discussion above, it would be quite clear that the amount of Rs. 75,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and when the defendant has not established the project and settled the industry the defendant was bound to refund the amount of Rs.75,000/-. The claim of interest @ 9.5% could also not be said to be an unreasonable claim by the plaintiff. plaintiffs claim to refund of the amount could not be said to be unreasonable when the industry is not established and settled. But in the instant case I find that the plaintiff suit is barred by the law of limitation and it is also bad for failure to prove that the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised person. I answer Issue No. 7 accordingly.
22. Thus, I hold that plaintiffs suit will have to be dismissed as I find that the same is barred by the Law of Limitation and it is also bad for failure on the part of the plaintiff to prove that it is signed and certified by a duly authorised person.
23. The suit is, Therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
24. Suit dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment