M/S. SHAKTI TUBES LTD. TR. DIRECTOR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 16-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 17 S.C.R. 699 
M/S. SHAKTI TUBES LTD. TR. DIRECTOR 
A 
v. 
\ 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
,... 
(Civil Appeal No. 7315 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 16, 2008 
B 
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
~ 
Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 14 - Applicability of - Contract 
,..,.. 
between State and private Contractor --Dispute between 
parties - Writ Petition by the Contractor against State- Petition c 
partly admitted by High Court - Thereafter, contractor filing 
suit against State seeking money decree - decreed by Trial 
Court - In appeal, High Court setting aside the decree on the 
ground that suit was barred by limitation - On appeal, held: 
Suit was not barred by limitation - Time spent in the writ 
D 
proceedings to be excluded for computing limitation period 
in terms of s. 14 because the writ proceedings were pursued 
bona fide and in good faith. 
Appellant-contractor entered into agreement with the 
respondent-State for supply of pipes. Appellant, in terms 
E 
and conditions of the agreement, demanded escalated 
rate of the pipes due to price rise of steel. As a dispute 
arose in that regard, appellant filed a Writ Petition on 
10.1.1994, alleging arbitrary refusal on the part of 
respondent to pay the price of the steel in terms of 
F 
escalation clause. The petition was partly admitted on 
14.9.1995 on the question of payment of interest and 
delayed payments and the same was not entertained in 
respect of escalated price. 
Appellant issued a notice u/s 80 CPC on 7.10.1995 
and filed a suit on 25.6.1996 seeking money decree G 
against the State. Suit was decreed rejecting the plea of 
State that the suit was barred by limitation. Appeal against 
the same was allowed by High Court holding the suit 
barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal. 
699 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
The question for consideration, before this Court was 
whether the period, spent on pursuing a writ petition 
should be excluded for the purpose of computing period 
T 
of limitation in filing a suit in terms of s.14 of Limitation 
.'"' 
Act, 1963. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Section 14 of the 
Limitation Act, 1963 were applicable to the facts of the 
present case. Section 14(1) should be construed liberally. 
Tt 
Section 14 speaks of prosecution of the proceedings in 
c a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause 
of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. The words "other 
cause of a like nature", must relate to the subject matter 
of the issue. [Paras 21, 22 and 26] [708-E; 710-0] 
Rameshwarlal vs. Municipal Council, Tonk and Ors. 
D (1996) 6 SCC 100; Union of India and Ors. vs. West Coast 
Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr. (Ill) (2004) 3 SCC 458 and India 
Electric Works Ltd. vs .. Jamesh Mantosh and Anr. (1971) 2 
SCR 397, relied on 
Gulbarga University v. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali and Anr. 
E (2008) 11 SCALE 791 referred to 
1.2. In view of the fact that a part of the writ petition 
was admitted for hearing, there cannot be any doubt 
whatsoever that the same was maintainable. Appellant 
. 
~ 
was, therefore, pursuing_ the said remedy bona .fide and 
F in good faith. [Para 21] [708-D] 
1.3. It is not correct to say that the writ petition filed 
)"-
' 
by the appellant had nothing to do with the escalation 
clause. In the writ petition, the entire contention of. the 
appellant revolved around the arbitrary refusal on the part 
G of respondent to pay the price of the steel in terms of the 
escalation clause. Even the amount claimed in the writ 
petition, was the same for which the suit was filed. The 
price of the steel, as contended in the writ petition, is the 
same in the suit. [Paras 18 and 20] [707-A-C] 
H 
SHAKTI TUBES LTD. TR. DIRECTOR v. STATE OF 
701 
BIHAR & ORS. 
Case Law Reference: 
A 
1996 (6) sec 1 oo 
2004 (3) sec 458 
1911 (1) sec 24 
(2008) 11 SCALE 79 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Relied on 
Referred to 
Para 22 
Para 23 
Para 24 
Para 25 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7315 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 03.10.2007 of 
B 
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in First Appeal No. 388 c 
of 1997. 
R.F. Nariman, Devashish Bharuka, Jaya Bharuka and 
Hansa Bharuka for the Appellant. 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and Gopal Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.S. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Whether the period spent on pursuing a writ petition 
should be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of 
li
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.