Bijay Paper Traders Ltd vs Ana Print O Grafix Private Limited

14.,"For the price of goods sold and

delivered where no fixed period of

credit is agreed upon.",Three years,"The date of the

delivery of the goods.

(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.â€​,,,

This court in Taipack Limited and Ors vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal, (supra)Â has held that a C-Form is not an acknowledgement of debt in terms",,,

of section 18 of the Limitation Act. This court held as follows:-Â,,,

“31. Now can it be said that the 'C' Form supplied by the Petitioner herein constitutes acknowledgment of debt owed to the Respondent No. 1 so,,,

as to give a fresh lease to the commencement of Limitation? The answer is plainly in the negative for the following reasons:,,,

Firstly, there is no acknowledgement of a present and subsisting liability. The said form can at the most be treated as an acknowledgement of the",,,

goods received under the contract of supply of goods and the price fixed to be paid for them. Whether or not payments were effected thereafter, or",,,

any amount remains due or outstanding cannot be inferred from the said 'C' form in the facts and circumstances of this case. Secondly, no intention to",,,

acknowledge a liability can be inferred from the contents of the said 'C' form. Thirdly, one cannot establish a jural relation of debtor and creditor from",,,

the contents of the said 'C' form. Thus, the essential requirements for a writing to constitute acknowledgment are missing from this document. (also",,,

see Hansa Industries (P) Limited v. MMTC Ltd. 2004 VI AD (Del) 222.,,,

Thus, the Arbitrator clearly erred in treating 16.1.2000 as the date of commencement of limitation. In view of the provisions contained in The",,,

Limitation Act, and the authorities cited, I find no force in the contention of the Respondent that the claim before the Arbitrator was within the period",,,

of Limitation. The said 'C' Form does not constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the Arbitrator,,,

misapplied the law on this aspect as well.â€​,,,

This court in Hansa Industries (P) Limited vs. M/s. MMTC Ltd. & Anr.(supra) had elaborated the above statutory provision as follows:-Â,,,

“15. In the case of Shapoor Freedom Mazda Vs . Durga Prosad Chamaria and others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1236 the Apex Court while,,,

interpreting corresponding Section 19 of Limitation Act, 1908 which was identically worded, held that the relevant essential requirement of valid",,,

acknowledgment are: (a) It must be before the relevant period of limitation has expired, (b) it must be in regard to the liability and respect of the right",,,

in question and (c) it must be in writing and must be signed by the party against whom such right is claimed.â€​Â,,,

Hence, for acknowledgement of a debt it must be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such amount made in writing signed by the parties.",,,

It would be clear that what the Form-C indicates is a statutory averment which is given under the Central State Tax Act. It merely shows delivery of,,,

goods as per invoice. It cannot be termed to be an acknowledgement of debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.,,,

In view of the above, keeping in view the earlier judgment of this court, it is manifest that the claim which is subject matter of the present winding",,,

up petition was barred by limitation when the present winding up petition was filed. In view of the said facts the present petition has no merits and is,,,

liable to be dismissed.,,,

Petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.",,,