Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14823/2003 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14823 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
KHODIYAR
CEMENT PIPE INDUSTRIES - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH - & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MS
AMITA S SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 18/01/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
Present
petition is preferred against notice dated 6.9.2003 demanding payment
of the unpaid bill issued by the respondent – Board –
Company.
It
is noticed from the record that initially the respondent –
Board – Company had issued a bill dated 23.4.1995 for a sum of
Rs.55,062=00. It appears that the said bill amount was not paid
therefore, the respondent – Board – Company issued demand
notice dated 11.4.1996.
The
petitioner did not pay any heed to the said notice as well and the
bill amount remained unpaid.
Interestingly,
the respondent – Board – Company, after having issued the
notice, forgot about the bill, the notice and the outstanding amounts
as well and allowed the time to pass so much so that the claim became
time barred.
Subsequently,
in 2003 i.e. after almost 8 years from the date of the bill and 7
years after the first notice, the respondent – Board –
Company woke up from its slumber and issued another notice demanding
the payment. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has
preferred present petition and challenged the notices on diverse
grounds.
Ex-facie,
the claim in the notices have become time barred.
It
appears to be noted that by issuing the said two notices, the
respondent – Board – Company had merely informed the
petitioner that if the amount in question was not paid, then the
respondent – Board – Company would take appropriate
action in law for recovery of the outstanding amounts i.e. by filing
the civil suit. From the record, it does not become clear as to
whether any suit was filed within time or not after issuance of the
bill. If the suit has already been filed, it would take its own
course, if it is already not disposed of by appropriate order. If the
suit has not been filed, though intimated by the respondent by
virtue of the said two notices, then, the proposed suit would
probably not be maintainable as the claim appears to have become time
barred. Even if the petitioner’s request is not accepted i.e. the
prayer to quash the notices is not granted, then also, the said
notices would be of no avail to the respondent, since as aforesaid,
the proposed suit appears to have become time barred, if not filed
within prescribed period of limitation from the date of issuance of
the bill.
Since
neither the petitioner nor the respondent has brought on record the
said factual aspect viz. whether the suit was filed within prescribed
time limit or not after issuance of the bill amount, any direction or
order with regard to the said aspect is not passed.
With
the aforesaid observations and having noted the fact that the
petition was listed for hearing yesterday and despite two calls, the
learned advocate for the petitioner was not present and today also,
the petitioner and/or petitioner’s advocate is not present, the
petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top