Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. In effect, both sides agree that the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings under the PP Act. The respondents cannot argue that only section 3 of the Limitation Act along with the limitation provided under Article 52 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act will apply and not section 18 of the same Act. Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act. It is true that the plea of benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act was not raised before the High Court and therefore not considered but nevertheless, as we have already rejected the objection of the respondents that the arguments relating to the benefits of section 18 of Limitation Act may not be considered by this Court, we proceed to deal with the same and analyze as to whether the benefit could or could not be extended to the appellant as claimed.
11. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce section 18 of the Limitation Act: “Effect of acknowledgment in writing. (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. 190 Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right, (b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and (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.”
12. 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. 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.
13. The respondents have vehemently argued that this point had never been raised before any of the forum below nor in the pleadings before this Court. However, the fact remains that the communication dated 04.02.2015 is not disputed by the respondents. There is no dispute on the contents either of the said communication. If that be so, under admitted position, and in view of Clause (a) of explanation to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the acknowledgment of the liability stands established. Thus, the limitation would extend to 03.02.2018. [2025] 5 S.C.R. New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc.
14. It has also been urged on behalf of the respondents that they never admitted the liability, rather they had specifically denied it. This submission is based on the ground that the revised tariff vide notification dated 23.07.2010 had been challenged before the High Court with respect to its retrospective application. This submission of the respondents is of no help to them. The respondents do not dispute the revised tariff under the notification dated 23.07.2010. Their challenge was only to the retrospective application of the same. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents against which an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was filed and is still pending. There are no interim orders in the said appeal. The respondents had been objecting to the demand on the ground of pendency of this intra-court appeal. As such there was no denial to pay nor the amount was disputed. The respondents were bound by the notification dated 23.07.2010 till such time it was set aside by any Court of law. Having failed before the Single Judge, the respondents, were liable to comply with the notification dated 23.07.2010.
15. At the time of the filing of the writ petition by the appellants before the High Court, the intra-court appeals preferred by the respondents were already pending. The learned Single Judge could have considered deferring the hearing of the writ petition till the disposal of the intra- court appeals as the outcome of the intra court appeals would have a direct bearing on the writ petition filed by the appellants.
16. Once the issue relating to retrospective applicability of revised tariff has been upheld by the learned 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. 192
17. 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.
18. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not entering into the other arguments advanced by the parties. We are restoring the writ petition of the appellants to be heard after the decision in the intra-court appeals. In case the appeals are allowed by the Division Bench then there would no question of any recovery retrospectively. 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.
19. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the writ petitions before the High Court to be heard after disposal of the pending intra-court appeals filed by the respondents. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain