State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates
|
Head Note
The Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3
Limitation - Question of Limitation - Held that the question of limitation is a mandate to the forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it, if there is no dispute on facts - It is thus irrelevant that the Appellant State had not raised the issue of limitation before the Trial Court - A duty was cast on the Court to consider this aspect of law, even on its own initiative - Since Court failed to do so, the Appellant State was competent to raise this legal question in appeal or indeed even in any successive appeal.
The Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 15 (2)
Exclusion of Time - Plea that since notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. was served to the Appellant State claiming damages on 7.8.1983, a period of two months from the date of the notice would have to be excluded when calculating the period of limitation, as per Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act - Held that since the limitation period for the last breach alleged by the Respondent itself ended on 15.11.2023 and the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is dated 7.8.1983, this provision is irrelevant - The notice perforce should have been issued before the suit became time barred, and only if so done would the period have been extended for a further two months.
The Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 55 , Article 113
Breach of Contract - Claim of Compensation - Damages sought by the Respondent are for work covered by the contract, and the change in circumstances was directly caused by breaches ascribable to the Appellant State in not handingover the site on time - Facially, the suit claims are damages incurred due to the extension of the contract period and the resultant damages are incurred by the Respondent - Suit would therefore fall within the ambit of Article 55 and not under Article 113 of the Act, 1963.
The Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 55
Breach of Contract - Claim of Compensation - Cause of action had arisen on each occasion when the Appellant State failed to hand over the site at the contractually stipulated time - Specifically, the limitation periods arose on 15.11.1976, 15.11.1977, 15.11.2023 and 15.11.1979, i.e. on the first day of each season, when the Respondent State committed a breach by failing to hand over the site - Thus the period of limitation did not commence at the termination of the contract period or the date of final payment - High Court's conclusion that the last date of breach and last date of payment were relevant, not each cause of action held to b patently erroneous - For each breach, a corresponding amount of damages for additional costs could have been sought - Suit was filed on 25.1.1985, well after the limitation period of three years for even the final breach, as the various causes of action became time barred on 15.11.1979, 15.11.1980, 15.11.2023 and 15.11.2023 respectively - Impugned order set aside and the appeal allowed.
Topic(s)-Limitation - Breach of Contract - Claim of Compensation