STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. K R SELVAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the suit is the appellant. THE plaintiff is the respondent. THE plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of amounts deposited by him with the defendant under an agreement. That agreement was broken, and the defaulter was found to be the plaintiff. THEre was an earlier suit to maintain the agreement and that was dismissed, and one of the grounds of dismissal was lack of notice under section 80, C. P. C. THE plaintiff relied on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, stating that the earlier suit was prosecuted in good faith and the court, apart from other grounds, could not entertain it for want of notice under section 80, C. P. C. THE case of the plaintiff has been countenanced by the two courts below. In this second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the two substantial questions of law formulated by this Court at the time of the admission of this second appeal runs as follows: 1. Whether in the light of the conditions in the tender form as accepted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the lease amount which is liable to be forfeited in case the plaintiff did- not work out the lease within the particular period"

(2.) WHETHER the court below was justified in holding that the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act saved the present suit" 2. So far as the first question is concerned, it has got to be answered against the defendant in view of the pronouncement of the supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram pur Distellary and Chemical Co. Ltd. , (1973)1 S. C. C. 649= A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 1098 where it has been held as follows -- The party to a contract taking security deposit from the other party to ensure due performance of the contract is not entitled to forfeit the deposit on ground of default when no loss is caused to him in consequence of such default. Admittedly, no loss caused to the defendant was either pleaded or proved.