V.M. SALGAOCAR AND BROS. versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO AND ANR

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 31-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
-
V.M. SALGAOCAR AND BROS. 
A 
v. 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO AND ANR 
MARCH 31, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-Section 120: 
Notice-Non giving of-Held: Giving of notice is a mandatory 
requirement for filing suit-Suit filed without giving notice is thus not, C 
maintainable-Further, Suit filed on expiry of six months of accrual of cause 
of action is also barred by time. 
There are two requirements in the Section and both the requirements 
have to be read conjunctively and not alternatively-The suit has to be filed D 
within six months of accrual of cause of action and to be preceded by one 
month's notice-The word 'or' occurs between two clauses if read alternatively 
would defeat the very object and intention and lead to absurdity. 
Shorter period of limitation provided for filing suit-Constitutionality 
of-Held: Siatute is founded on public policy that an unlimited and perpetual E 
threat of litigation leads to disorder and confusion and creates insecurity and 
uncertainty-Therefore legislature has sought to balance the public interest in 
providing limitation on the one hand and at the same time not to unreasonably 
restrict the right of a party to initiate proceedings on the other-Once a suit 
is filed the object of limitation as a statute repose is satisfied in as much as 
the opponent party knows what he has to defend 
F 
Interpretation of statutes-Provisions of special Act to prevail over the 
general Act. 
limitation prescribed for filing suit against Port authorities-No 
I 
limitation prescribed for suit by Port authorities-Reasonableness of '0 
classification-Challenge to-Held: legislative in its wisdom can make separate 
provision within which a suit must be filed by the individual from that within 
which a suit can be filed by a statutory body. 
27 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Shorter period provided under, for suits against Board of Trustees 
whereas suits against Government can be filed within normal period of 
limitation-Held: Section I 20 not violative .of Article 14 on that ground as 
there is rational basis for such differentiation. 
Limitation-A statute ~ot dealing with the limitation in general and 
B which prescribes period of limitation different from the one in the Indian 
Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 19(J)(j) 
of Constitution of India, 1950. 
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 3-Waiver of limitation-Held: If a suit 
is ex-facie barred by the Law of Limitation, a Court has no choice but to 
C dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of 
limitation. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order I 2, ·Rule 6-Decree of admissions-Respondent disputing the claim 
D as time barred but admitting part of claim-Trial court passing decree on 
admission-Correctness of-Held: Suit having been par.tly decreed on 
admission could not be subsequently dismissed on the ground of limitation for 
the remaining amount. 
E 
Waiver-Plea not raised before trial court-Question of waiver taken 
· for the first time at the argument stage before the High Court-Permissibility 
of -Held: Question of waiver is not a pure question of law hence could not 
be permitted to be raised at any stage of proceedings. 
Respondent Board had provided a Mechanised Ore Handling Plant 
F (MOPH) for facility of iron ore exporters at Goa Port and fixed certain 
rates for proper utilization. It was also levying surcharge and granting 
rebates. The respondent by its letter dated 6.4.1984 informed the appellant 
that they had become eligible to receive the rebate of Rs.7,09,835@ Re.I 
per tonne for having turned over the plot allotted to it 6.39 times. The 
appellant by their let.ter 12.4.1984 set out various arguments to justify the 
G ground for full rebate and requested for the refund of th~ entire sum of 
Rs.62,46,584.10. ID reply thereto, the respondent Board by its letter dated 
16.06.1984 declined the request of the appellant contained in its, letter dated 
12.04.1984. 
H 
The appellant filed suit on 11.6.86. Respo~dents admitted part of the 
.. 
V.M. SALGAOCAR v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO 
29 
claim. However, it contended that suit was barred by time under Section A 
t 20 of Major Port Trust Act, 1963 which prescribes a period of six months 
from the date of arising of cause of action. Appellant claimed that when 
normal period of limitation under Limitation Act is 3 years, prescribi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.