SIEMENS LTD AND ORS Vs. VINAY BAZAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.4.1998 whereby the Respondent/Plaintiff's suit for recovery was decreed on account of charges due from the Appellant for shipping of consignments.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant has very fairly argued only two points in support of his appeal. The first argument was that the suit was barred by limitation as the account was not an open mutual current account under Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The second argument was that the rate of interest claimed and awarded was at an exorbitant rate of 24% p.a. till the date of filing of the suit and even pendente lite and future interest is at 18% per annum, both of which rates of interest considering the present interest regime ought to be much lower.

(3.) So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, I note that the three bills for which payments are claimed by the Respondent/Plaintiff are dated 19.8.1993 (Ex.PW1/16), 30.8.1993(Ex.PW1/17) and 4.10.1993 (Ex.PW 1/18). The suit has been filed on 19.8.1996. In terms of Section 12(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 in computing the period of limitation for a suit, the date from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. When we exclude 19.8.1993, the limitation will commence on 20.8.1993 and the suit could have been filed till 19.8.1996. The suit has in fact been filed on 19.8.1996. The subsequent bills are in fact dated 30.8.1993 and 4.10.1993 which are well within limitation. The argument of limitation is therefore devoid of merits and is rejected.