Supreme Court: Where Liability Is Acknowledged For Property Or Right, Fresh Limitation May Be Computed From Time When Acknowledgment Was Signed
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals of the New Mangalore Port Trust against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
The Court clarified thus in Civil Appeals preferred by the New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed its bunch of Writ Petitions against the District Judge’s Judgment.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “Section 18 of the Limitation Act is very clear that where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. Clause (a) of the explanation to Section 18 declares that an acknowledgment would be sufficient for various reasons to be stated therein, which includes the time for payment has not yet come as one of the reasons. In the present case this reason squarely applies.”
Senior Advocate Yatindra Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Haripriya Padmanabhan appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
NMPT i.e., the Appellant had allotted a land to the Respondents (Licensees) for loading and unloading goods subject to the payment of licence fee which was to be revised every 5 years with the approval of Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP). The said allotment was made in the year 2003 and thereafter, the licence fee was revised. Pursuantly, demand was raised for realising the arrears of licence fee and beginning March 2011, the Assistant Estate Manager/Estate Officer issued a demand notice to all the Licensees. The Licensees challenged the notification before the High Court via Writ Petitions on the ground that it was not permissible to revise the licence fee retrospectively. The Single Judge dismissed the same and upheld the notification. The Licensees then approached the Division Bench via Writ Appeals which were still pending without any Interim Orders. Thereafter, the Assistant Estate Manager issued a demand notice to which the Licensees objected.
The Estate Officer vide communication, gave a notice under Section 7(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) to the Licensees calling upon them to show cause on or before 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice why an Order requiring to pay the said arrears of rent together with simple interest should not be made. The question of demanding the difference of licence fee for the period prior to July 23, 2010 was yet to be decided by the Division Bench in the pending Writ Appeal. The Licensees preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 9 of PP Act before the District Judge. The Judge held that the proceedings under Section 7(1) was barred by time and set aside the demand. Being aggrieved, NMPT filed Writ Petitions before the High Court which were dismissed. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “The respondents were throughout alleging that the time had not been come as the appeals were pending before the Division Bench. This acknowledgement was given in response to the demand by the lessor (appellant) made well within the limitation of 3 years. The lessor as such would be entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation taking benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.”
The Court noted that once the issue relating to retrospective applicability of revised tariff has been upheld by the Single Judge and the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents were dismissed, against which Intra-Court Appeals at the instance of the Respondents were pending, the High Court ought not to have proceeded with the hearing of the Writ Petition.
“Rather, it should have awaited the outcome of the pending intra-Court appeals relating to retrospective application of the notification dated 23.07.2010. Subject to the final outcome of the said intra-court appeals, the writ petition should have been decided. This was all the more necessary for the High Court in view of the consistent stand taken by the respondents that the demands raised by the appellant vide various notices issued prior to 12.08.2015 or thereafter may be deferred awaiting the outcome of the appeals”, it added.
The Court further remarked that the Respondents were well aware that they had lost from the Single Judge as their Petitions had been dismissed but still, they had been resisting the demand only on the basis of the pendency of the Appeals before the Division Bench.
“This objection was taken only to delay the payment of the dues of the revised tariff. The respondents therefore ought not to have benefitted out of the technical objection raised by them regarding the limitations when they were themselves bound by the decision of the learned Single Judge and had no other objection or denial to the demand except that of the pending appeals before the Division Bench”, it also observed.
The Court, therefore, restored the Writ Petition of the Appellants to be heard after the decision in the Intra-Court Appeals and clarified that in case the Appeals are allowed by the Division Bench then there would no question of any recovery retrospectively and the demands would be liable to be withdrawn.
“However, if the respondents fail in their appeals, they would be liable to pay the demand in accordance to law along with interest admissible under law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the High Court’s Order, and restored the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 440)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Yatindra Singh and AOR Arvind Gupta.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, Haripriya Padmanabhan, AOR Mudit Gupta, Advocates Kuriakose Varghese, V. Shyamohan, Anshika Bajpai, and Shourya Dasgupta.
