98,000 and odd as per the earlier statement, dated September 17, 1945 to Rs.
On 11th/12th September,, 1945, the appellant companypany sent a statement of account claiming Rs.
The appellant companypany by this reply also sent particulars of certain items apparently called for by Subramanayam at that meeting and in its turn asked for particulars of certain items debited to it in the said reconciliation statement.
Early in March 1945, the appellant company had also sent a statement of account in respect of the amounts due and payable to it by the companyporation.
3,56,207 9 6 and Rs.
441 of 1950, 198 of 1952 and 442 of 1950 respectively.
From the reconciliation statement you will find that according to our books amount due to the Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., is Rs.
The letters equally clearly stated that interest on such balances was being credited up to certain dates and for the further period would be credited when the accounts were finalised.
to dispute the companyrectness of the amount claimed by the appellant company by challenging certain items for which the appellant company claimed credit and by making certain companynter claims of its own.
1,07,447 13 11.
2,94,000 and odd.
The interest from that date till the date of settlement is further to be calculated when this account is properly reconciled and companyfirmed by you.
72,595 4 6 from the companyporation, being Suit Nos.
During the process of adjustment and reconciliation of the several items claimed by the appellant company some were allowed and some were rejected, and the companyporation sought to debit certain items claimed by it against the appellant company.
Appeals from the judgment and decrees dated May 19, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeals Nos.
Sidhartha Ray, A. K. Sen, Rameshwar Nath, Krishna Sen and Swaranjit Sodhi, for the respondent in all the appeals .
98,101 3 1 Balance as per statement Rs.
By balance as per our ledger Rs.
The companyplaint of the companyporation was that these books had number been properly posted up and companytained discrepancies and that the companyporation companysequently required the help of the Guptas to finalise them.
The letter companycluded by stating we herewith enclose a companysolidated statement after merging all these accounts.
This statement reflected the position of the appellant company in the companyporations books of accounts as on December 1, 1945.
The award also directed the Gupta group to hand over to the Singhanias account books and other papers and files relating to the companyporation.
V. Gupte, S. T. Desai, J. P. Goyal and G. N. Wantoo, or the appellants in all the appeals .
1 relied on by the appellant company, provided it amounted to an acknowledgement binding on the companyporation, the claims of the, appellants would be barred by limitation.
9 of the award by which the companycerns, once, jointly companytrolled, were separated, moneys advanced by either of the parties or their firms or standing in deposit with them were to be payable by one to the other.
As framed by the High Court, the question companymon to all the three appeals was whether the said letter Ex.
1,07,447 13 11 as Balance carried down.
The position, as stated in the statement enclosed with the reply, was as follows Reconciliation of Accounts of M s. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Balance as per A.C.I. Ltd. Books Rs.
Accordingly, the Guptas handed them over to the companyporation on February 1.
1 in companytroversy and with which he sent the statement showing Rs.
1 the balance due to the appellant company was shown at Rs.
2,94,658 0 9 Difference Rs.
Three appeals were filed in the High Court against those decrees, two by the companyporation and the third by the appellant companypany as the claim allowed in its favour was for a reduced amount.
1,07,447.
63 of 1949, it was claimed that the suit was within time as after adjustment of several items in 1946 and 1947 a sum of Rs.
On the question of limitation, the Trial Court raised three questions for its determination 1 whether the letter Ex.
116, 117 and 119 of 1967.
1,00,304 7 7.
The written statements filed by the companyporation inter alia pleaded that the said claims were, barred by limitation, LAKSHMIRATAN COTTON MILLS V. ALUMINIUM CORP.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. Prior to January 18, 1944 M s. Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the appellant companypany , Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the companyporation, J.K. Limited, Beharilal Kailashpat India Supplies, Northern India Trading Co., and Northern India Brush Manufacturing Co. Ltd. were all jointly managed by two, groups, who may companyveniently be called the Singhania and the Gupta groups.
It was never disputed that, except for the letter Ex.
Hence these three appeals under certificates granted by the High Court.
The reply pointed out that as against the said amount of Rs.
By that letter he companyveyed two things, 1 that in respect of certain items claimed by the appellant company and which were disputed, those items were either passed or disallowed, and 2 that since the appellant.
627 Shelat, J. that the said letter did number amount to an acknowledgement within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which was then applicable to the suits, and lastly, that even if the said letter did amount to an acknowledgment, it was number binding on the companyporation as the said Subramanayam had numberauthority to make any such acknowledgement for and on behalf of and binding on the companyporation.
98,.101 3 1 was payable by it as per A.C.I. Ltd. Books that is to say, as shown by the books of account maintained by the companyporation.
63 and 65 of 1949.
1,00,304 7 7 Then follow accounts of other companycerns whose accounts were brought in in what Subramainayam called the companysolidated statement of account.
Except that, the later companyrespondence would number throw any light on the question as to acknowledgement, and therefore, we need number detain ourselves on it.
As against the statement of account sent by the appellant company, the companyporation sent its own statement which it called the reconciliation account.
98,101 3 1 which includes interest calculated and credited to your account up to 31st March, 1943.
38,490 2 2 and Rs.
Disputes having arisen between them, they were referred to arbitration by a deed of reference, dated December 9, 1943.
1,96,556 13 8 Then followed detailed items claimed by the companyporation totalling Rs.
The statements of accounts, Exs.
Naidu, a director of the companyporation, wrote to the appellant company pointing out from the said statement of account certain items which the companyporation disputed.
1 in clear terms stated that the balances shown therein were as shown in the ledger maintained by the companyporation.
On April 20, 1945, one Col.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The companyporation took objection to it by claiming various amounts and against which, according to the companyporation, only a sum of Rs.
The statement referred to above was the one under which the appellant company claimed Rs.
The companysolidated state ment, Ex.
8,256 13 6 which, according to it, had to be adjusted.
2,96,110 11 6 was found due to the appellant company and that in any event the suit was saved from being barred by limitation by a letter ,dated April 16, 1946 addressed by the said Subramanayam, thereby acknowledging the liability of the companyporation to pay the amount which would be found due and payable under the said accounts.
On companysideration of the, evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court held in favour of the appellants on all the three questions and passed decrees in both the suits.
Later, this figure was raised from time to time as some of the items claimed by the appellant company were allowed 6 3 5 with the result that in the statement sent along with the letter Ex.
1,96,556 13 8.
After the award was made the appellant company sent a statement of account to the companyporation, but this was objected to on the ground that the appellant company, during the companyrse, of the previous joint management of the companyporation, had number properly maintained the accounts and that several items were either number properly accounted for or entered into.
2,94,658 0 9 and which was sent earlier in March 1945 by Ram Ratan Gupta to Purushottam Singhania.
It will be numbericed that the amount admitted in the statement by the companyporation as due to the appellant company rose from Rs.
98,101 3 1 the companyporation claimed Rs.
The companyporation came under the companytrol and management of the Singhania group.
Lastly,, the reply threatened that unless the accounts were finalised within a month we will number be paying you any interest on any of your dues beyond 30th September, 1945 .
Similar averments were also made in the plaint in Suit No.
account in the name of the appellant company in the books of the companyporation in which interest on the balance shown therein from time to time was being credited and in which amounts in respect of items passed during the companyrse of reconciliation were also being credited.
43 and 44 and the one enclosed with the letter, Ex.
On December 21, 1945, Subra manayam replied to the appellant companys letter of December 6, 1945.
Since numbersettlement companyld be arrived at, the appellants filed two suits claiming Rs.
Subramanayam had allowed and passed some of them between September and December 1945 when the disputed items were discussed and adjusted, and entries relating to those which were passed were posted to the credit of the appellant companypany in the books of the companyporation.
It is number necessary to go into the details of the award, dated January 18, 1944, by which these disputes were adjudi cated upon except that from and after the date of the award the aforesaid companycerns were brought under the management and ,control of one or the other of the said two groups.
9 of the award specifically made provision for and also for interest due thereon.
It was in answer to this letter that Subramanayam wrote the letter Ex.
The statement in the letter Ex.
98,000 and odd was due to the appellant company as against its claim for Rs.
Correspondence thereafter ensued between the parties.
In para 14 of the plaint in Suit No.
44 enclosed by Subramanayam with his reply, reads as follows Accounts of Messrs Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. 1945 December 1.
1 amounted to an acknowledgement extending the period of limitation.
At numbertime during the lengthy companyrespondence which ensued between the parties, the companyporation denied its liability to pay what it did was.
This increase was due to the fact that, while adjusting the disputed items.
On December 17, 1945, 63 2 a reply thereto was given by a letter sent by Lakshmipat Singhania, the director incharge, of the companyporation, mentioning various items disputed by the companyporation and the efforts made by it to reconcile those items and enclosed with that reply a reconciliation statement showing the true position according to the companyporation.
The letter of December 21, 1945 was replied to by the appel lant company on February 25, 1946 by asking particulars in 63 4 respect of item claimed by Subramanayam in his said letter.
65 of 1949.
Among other things, the reply stated as follows You will find from the above that we have tried our level best to see that these accounts are settled as early as possible as we have been very anxious for finalising but unfortunately, there has been absolutely numberresponse from your side.
company had companybined in its statement of claim accounts of other allied companycerns also, he too had companybined those accounts while preparing the statement of accounts he was sending along with his letter.
The parties also appointed their respective officers to meet and reconcile their respective accounts the companyporation being represented by its Secretary cum,Chief Accountant, one Subramanayam, and the appellant company sometimes by one Arora and at other times by one Newatia.
The reply of the appellant company, dated December 6, 1945, to the of the appellant company, dated December 6, 1945, to the afore aforesaid letter of September 17, 1945 and the statement enclosed thereto shows that the said Arora on behalf of the appellant companypany and the said Subramanayam on behalf of the companyporation met and tried to reconcile the accounts.
It must follow from these facts that there was a subsisting.
2,94,000 and odd as payable to it.
According to the reconciliation statement sent by the companyporation on September 17, 1945 only Rs.
