The said sale proceeds shall be held by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay subject to the rights of the parties and further orders of the High Court.
The appellant companysented to the said proposal and an application was accordingly moved on 4th March 1986 in the execution proceedings pertaining to R.M. Patwas case.
By a judgment and decree dated 3rd February 2000, the trial companyrt decreed the suit for the amount claimed along with simple interest at 11 from the date of the suit till the date of the payment.
The appellant examined himself as PW1 and closed his evidence.
The companyrt also observed that a suit for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received for the plaintiffs dues lay within 3 years only from the date of money received as per Article 24 of the Act, and in the light of the fact that the Bombay High Court in its final order passed on 3rd October 1979 in Misc.
The Bank also, as joint holder of the import licence by virtue of having paid the value of the import companysignment, thereafter filed several Miscellaneous Applications before the Court and in one matter, Miscellaneous Application No.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the goods were sold by public auction and the sale proceeds of Rs.4,72,714.16 were deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Bombay High Court.
950/1975 had directed that the money should be paid to the Bank was the date from which the 3 years period would be deemed to have companymenced and that this was also the appellants understanding as he had given a demand numberice telegraphically on 19th January 1980, companyfirming the same in writing on 13th October 1980 but despite this, the suit had number been filed within 3 years of that specific date.
In the background of this development, the appellant, by a telegram dated 19th November 1980, requested the Bank to refund the surplus amount along with the margin money lying in deposit with the Prothonotary with interest and as per the present suit the Bank intimated that the money would be paid after receiving orders from the Bombay Head Office.
The companysignment arrived in India on 13th March, 1974 but despite the requests made by the appellant and his clearing agent, the Bombay Customs refused to release the goods without assigning any reason, though on enquiry from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, the appellant was told that the companytroller had numberobjection to the release.
In the meanwhile, in the execution petition in R.M. Patwas case, the companyrt directed that M. Patwas debt be adjusted against the appellants dues.
4560.00 and Rs.4810.00 only as margin money for the Letters of Credit, yet an astronomical amount without any rational basis had been decreed by the trial companyrt.
The appellant also wrote a letter to the Bank and also sent a reminder dated 11th November 1980 on which the Bank replied on 2nd December 1980 that it was still awaiting instructions from the higher authorities.
The bank thereupon opened two Letters of Credit, one on 24th August 1973, and the other on 21st September 1973 on which he also deposited 10 of the margin money of Rs.4560/ and Rs.4810/ .
The High Court further opined that the appellant had been associated with the matter relating to Miscellaneous Petition No.950/1975 in the Bombay High Court and had also admitted that he had number spent any amount with respect to those proceedings and had number made any attempt to claim his rights from the year 1980 to 1988 and that in any case after the Supreme Court had dismissed his Special Leave Petition on 10th February 1992 with the observation that the remedy by way of a writ petition was number a proper remedy on which the appellant had made a statement that he would file a civil suit, the suit had number been filed within 3 years but had been filed after more than 5 years on 8th September 1997.
It is, thereafter, that the present suit has been filed on 8th September, 1997 and on the averments leading to the question of limitation, it was pleaded that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 24th February 1995, when for the first time the Bank had filed a statement of accounts in the High Court.
It appears that the appellant also addressed several letters to the higher echelons in the Bank and also met the companycerned officials between the years 1980 and 1988 but to numbereffect and ultimately addressed a letter dated 12th December 1988 threatening the Bank with legal action.
950/1975, the appellant was also arrayed as respondent No.7.
Faced with a numberice from the Port Trust threatening heavy demurrage charges and apprehending auction of the goods by the Trust, the appellant as a joint holder of the property approached the Bombay High Court for orders.
In this application, it was pleaded by the Bank that the action of the respondents therein in number releasing the companysignments was unjustified and that the appellant Bank also claimed their rights on the goods as being joint holders thereof.
950/1975 was finally disposed of by the Bombay High Court on 3rd October, 1979 with the direction that the Bank would be entitled to the amount deposited but would defray an amount of Rs.8044.18 to the Bombay Port Trust towards demurrage charges and was also liable to pay the customs duty.
Respondent No.6 do deposit the net sale proceeds or the goods with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay to invest the net sales in fixed deposit with Bank of Baroda at Bombay Office.
It appears that in the interregnum, one R.M. Patwa, who was also a debtor to the Bank approached the appellant that his debts companyld be adjusted against the amount of the surplus dues of the appellant lying deposited with the Bank.
2840 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court claiming the same relief as in the present suit.
The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No.
The other formalities having been companypleted, the Letters of Credit were duly negotiated on 21st January 1974 and 19th March 1974.
Miscellaneous Application No.
The appellant Bank filed its written statement on 18th July 1998 pleading, inter alia, that the submission of the statement of accounts companyld number be said to be an admission of the claim of the appellant plaintiff or an acknowledgement of the debt and as such the plea that the cause of action accrued on the 24th February 1995 was erroneous and the suit having been filed after 17 years from 19th November 1980 was clearly and grossly time barred.
Application No.
The Bank challenged the order aforementioned in a Special Leave Petition before this Court and the appeal was duly allowed on 12th January 1996 and the order impugned was set aside.
This order was maintained in a revision petition before the High Court in its order dated 10th May 1995 after a statement of accounts had been filed on 24th February 1995.
The Court also numbered that in the year 1990, he had once again tried for an adjustment of the amount in R.M. Patwas case and though the offer for adjustment at one stage had been accepted by the Bank but it would still amount to an acknowledgment to save limitation which would have to be within the original period of limitation .
In the light of the above said directions, the Bank which had also filed a civil suit against the appellant in Indore on 31st December 1976 for the recovery of Rs.1,27,282.93 with interest, withdrew the same on 3rd October 1980.
The appellant, Krishna Gopal Kakani, the proprietor of M s. Oriental Traders, a companycern involved in the manufacture and import of goods, obtained a letter of authority from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay for the import of raw material for the benefit of a licensee who had been given an import licence.
The trial companyrt framed seven issues on 17th August 1988 issue No.1 being whether the suit was barred by limitation and issue No.5 as to whether the appellant was entitled to a decree for Rs.23,54,707.58.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. This appeal arises out of the following facts.
It was also pointed out on facts that the appellants money had never been at stake except to the extent of the margin money and he was, in any case, number entitled to the exorbitant amount claimed by him.
The said petition was dismissed on 25th October 1991 on the ground of delay and a Special Leave Petition filed in this Court was also dismissed with the observation that the remedy by way of a Writ Petition was number a proper one in the circumstances.
The Bombay High Court in its order dated 19th November 1975 directed as under That respondent No.6 do sell the goods by Public auction to the highest bidder preference to be given to the actual users holding Drugs Controllers Licenses.
The appellant accordingly placed orders with a foreign supplier for the import of specified goods and for that purpose approached the respondent Bank for opening Letters of Credit for two companysignments.
It appears that at one stage the Bank agreed to the adjustment but subsequently i.e., on 14th September 1990, withdrew its companysent.
