Delhi District Court
M/S Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited vs Wg. Cdr. S. K. Bhatia on 28 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN :
CIVIL JUDGE-07 (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Civil Suit No. : 434/10/96
Unique ID : 02401C0292312002
In the matter of:
M/s Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited
having its registered Office at
Safdarjung Airport
New Delhi-110003, through its
Company Secretary
Sh. Sanjiv Aggarwal
.............. Plaintiff
Versus
WG. CDR. S. K. Bhatia
" Hira Kunj"
Jesse Ram Road,
Haridwar (U. P)
WG. CDR. S. K. Bhatia
228, (SFS), Rajouri Apartments
Opp. Government of India Press
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi
............. Defendant
Date of institution of the Suit : 26.07.1996
Date on which order was reserved : 18.02.2012
Date of decision : 28.02.2012
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,08,862/-
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment the court shall decide the present suit for Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 1/24 recovery of Rs.1,08,862/-.
2. Briefly stated facts of the present suit are that the plaintiff is a Government of India enterprise, registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing private helicopter services to the oil and non-oil sectors. The present suit has been instituted through Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, the Company Secretary and Senior Legal Manager of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has contended that the defendant had approached it for appointment as Captain. After necessary interview etc, the plaintiff was appointed as a Captain with the plaintiff company. The said appointment was subject to the execution of a bond for service of the plaintiff for a minimum period of 3 years after the completion of the 12 weeks training. An agreement dated 11.05.90 was executed by the defendant by which he had agreed to undergo conversion training of 12 weeks and also that he shall serve the plaintiff's company for minimum three years, failing which he would be liable to pay liquidated damages amounting to Rs.2 Lacs.
4. It is contended that the defendant completed his training and was appointed as a Captain with the plaintiff company. However, he submitted his resignation on 07.08.1991 thereby Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 2/24 committing the breach of the agreement dated 18.05.90. As such, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contends that the defendant approached it in April 1992 for clearance of his dues. The plaintiff accepted the said request on the condition that the defendant would comply with the following conditions:-
1. The defendant shall pay Rs.1,35,000/- calculated on pro-
rata basis for not serving the plaintiff for the balance period of two years. This amount was payable in three installments.The first installment was payable by 13.04.1992 and the last one by 15.10.1992. The defendant was also required to pay 18 per cent interest on the amount due till the final installment is paid.
2. The defendant shall execute a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to settle the dues.
5. The defendant agreed to the said conditions and executed a promissory note on 13.04.1992 undertaking to settle the agreed dues. The plaintiff contends that the defendant has made a payment of Rs. 85,000/- (Rs.45,000/- in cash on 13.04.1992, and Rs.40,000/- by demand draft having no. 336343 dated 06.02.1993) against the total amount of Rs. 1,35,502/-.
Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 3/24
6. The plaintiff further contends that the defendant is liable to pay not Rs.1,35,000/- but Rs.1,47,985.35/- as the pay scale of the defendant were revised, thereby enhancing the recoverable amount. The plaintiff demanded the said amount from the plaintiff by letters dated 15.12.1992 and 17.02.1993, and this fact has been acknowledged by the defendant by his letter dated 24.12.1992. The plaintiff contends that defendant has acknowledged his debt and agreed to pay the total outstanding by his letter dated 05.09.1993. However, no amount has been paid till date. A legal notice dated 10.01.1996 was also served upon the defendant but to no avail. Hence the present suit.
7. The defendant has vehemently opposed the contentions of the plaintiff. In the written statement, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff's claim is based on an unconscienable contract which cannot be enforced under the law.
8. The defendant contends that he was working as a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force in the year 1990, when Air Force issued a circular inviting volunteers to fly with the Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd(plaintiff) as a Captain by letter no. PHL/00/PERS/1460(III)/4205 dated 31.03.1989. It is contended that in the said circular, there was no mention that officers so selected would be on probation and that their flying license Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 4/24 would not be insured, or that they will have to execute any bond of three years of compulsory service. The defendant applied to the said circular and he was selected by the plaintiff. The defendant was allowed pre-mature retirement from the Indian Air Force with effect from 16.05.1990 vide letter no. AIR/HQ/21901/11316/P03(F) dated 23.04.90 for permanent absorption in Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited.
9. However, when the defendant received the letter of appointment dated 17.05.1990, he was shocked by the terms and conditions as mentioned therein, as they were not in consonance with the information given by circular dated 31.03.1989. However, since the defendant has alredy been released from the Indian Air Force, he had no other alternative but to sign the agreement dated 17.05.90. The defendant contends that this agreement was discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights of the defendant, and is also barred by the Indian Contract Act 1872. The defendant contends that once he got a better job in Malaysia with an insured license issued by FAA and thus, he resigned from the plaintiff company to join the new job.
10.The defendant has admitted having executed the promissory note and having made the payment of Rs.85,000/- to the plaintiff. However, he submits that the same was done under Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 5/24 coercion and the plaintiff is liable to return the said amount to the defendant.
11.On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 27.01.1999:-
1. Whether the agreement dated 17.05.1990 was obtained by plaintiff under undue influence, coercion by fraud and misrepresentation, if so, to what effect? OPD
2. Whether the agreement dated 17.05.1990 was a void and voidable agreement as alleged in preliminary objections in the WS and if so, its effect? OPD.
3. Whether the defendant has not availed benefits under the agreement dated 17.05.90 and was not bound by the agreement as alleged in the WS by defendant? OPD.
4. Whether Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal had no authority to sign and verify and institute the suit as alleged by defendant? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the suit amount as claimed? OPP.
6. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
7. Relief.
Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 6/24
12.An additional issue was framed on 11.02.2000 as follows:-
1. Whether the defendant is entitled to recover back Rs.85,000/- paid by the defendant allegedly in coercion? OPD.
13.On behalf of the plaintiff, Sh. Sanjiv Aggarwal has entered the witness box as PW-1. This witness has filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. P-1 and also filed additional affidavit as Ex. P-1/A. This witness has corroborated the averment made in the plaint and has exhibited the following documents:-
1. Certified copy of power of attorney in witness's favour Ex.PW1/2
2. The original agreement dated 18.05.1990 is Ex. PW1/3.
3. The copy of letter dated 27.08.1992 issued to the defendant is Ex. PW1/4 and the letter dated 12.12.1992 calling upon the defendant to pay the balance amount is Ex. PW1/5.
4. Copy of legal notice dated 10.01.1996 along with envelope and postal receipts is Ex. PW1/6.
14.Apart from the above document, the witness has also relied upon the following documents:-
1. The demand promissory note dated 13.04.1092 ,i.e Ex.DW5/1, Ex.DW2/3, Ex.DW2/5
2. Copy of letter dated 24.12.1992 (Ex. DW2/P5), Copy Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 7/24 of letter dated 05.09.1993 is (Ex. DW2/7), Letters dated 13.04.1992, 18.04.1992, 06.05.1992, 18.08.1992, 14.04.1993 (Ex. DW2/P1 to DW2/P3 & DW2/4 and DW2/6 respectively)
15.In the cross examination, this witness has admitted that he had left the company at the time of recording of his statement in the present suit and he joined back on 05.05.2003. He denied the suggestion that he does not have any authority to institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff. He has deposed that the defendant joined the plaintiff company in May 1990. He has deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about the present case as he was not employed with the plaintiff company at that time, and that his knowledge is only based on the records.
16.The testimony of PW-1 makes it clear that this witness is practically not aware of the dispute between the parties. To produce the relevant portion of this witness verbatim here " I am not aware if the plaintiff company had demanded certain pilots from Indian Air Force, where the defendant was working at the relevant time in the public interest. I do not know if the plaintiff company had asked the defendant from Indian Air Force for permanent absorption in plaintiff's company. I am not aware if the defendant was released from the Indian Air Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 8/24 Force in the public interest on 16.05.1990. I am also not aware of the fact that release order of the defendant was directly sent to the plaintiff's company by Indian Air Force in public interest....I do not know if the defendant have not been confirmed on the date he resigned from the plaintiff company....I do not know if the defendant was on probation.....I cannot tell if the defendant was informed for the first time on 17.05.90 in his appointment letter about the execution of the bond.....I am not aware if the defendant was not given any confirmation letter" . This witness is also not aware whether the defendant was given any conversion training or not.
17.No other witness has been examined by the plaintiff.
18.To prove his case the defendant himself has entered the witness box as DW-2. In the cross examination, this witness has corroborated the averments made in the written statement. This witness has exhibited and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Appointment letter dated 17.05.1990 is Ex. DW2/1
2. Pre-mature retirement from IAF dated 23.04.1990 is Ex. DW2/2
3. Letter written by Air Headqarter to the plaintiff dated 13.07.1990 is Mark X.
4. Resignation letter dated 10.07.1991 Ex. DW2/3 Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 9/24
5. The letters written by Deputy High Commissioner to the defendant dated 26.09.1991, 16.10.1991 17.03.1992are Ex. DW1/1 to DW1/3.
6. Reply to the letter of High Commissioner Ex. DW2/4.
7. Copy of letter written by defendant to Sh. Vivek Katju are Ex. DW2/5 and DW2/6.
8. Copy of letters enclosing draft given to the plaintiff company is Ex. DW2/7 and DW2/8.
19.In the cross examination, this witness has admitted that while working with Pawan Hans Helicopters he was given training to fly commercial helicopters. It is deposed that he was made to sign a bond of three years mandatory service with the plaintiff. He has deposed that he had agreed to pay the bond money under duress because of the letter from the Indian High Commission. He has admitted that Ex. DW2/P1 to DW2/P4 are the letters written by him after he received letters from the High Commissioner. He has also admitted that he has written the letter Ex. DW2/P5, Ex.DW2/P6 and Ex.DW2/P7.
20.DW-3 is Wing Commandar A.S.Gupta who has brought the letter dated 31.03.1989 written by Pawan Hans to Directorate of Personnel (Officers) Air Headquarter, New Delhi regarding recruitment of pilots. The said letter along with annexure A and B is Ex. DW3/A. The copy of release order dated 23.04.1990 Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 10/24 is Ex. DW3/B by which premature retirement of defendant was accepted. In the cross examination, this witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
21.DW-4 is S.Shukla, Squadran Leader who has produced the carbon copy of letter dated 13.07.90 from Air Headquarter to the Managing Director of Plaintiff Company. The same is Ex. DW4/A. He has deposed that through this letter, the anguish of officers for being subjected to certain clauses which were not mentioned in the terms and conditions at the time of interview was conveyed.
22.DW-1 is Sh. Vivek Katju, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. This witness has deposed that from September 1991 to March 1992 he was posted as Deputy High Commissioner in the High Commission of India (Malaysia). He has admitted that the letters Ex. DW1/2 to DW1/3 were written by him and bears his signatures. He has deposed that the concerned authority as mentioned in Ex. DW1/2, means the Pawan Hans Helicopters Limited. He has deposed that in the capacity of High Commissioner, he is not doing things on his own and is only communicating on behalf of the Goverment of India. He has deposed that he would not have conveyed any information or message to the defendant unless he was prima facie satisfied with its contents. He has deposed that he had jurisdiction to Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 11/24 write letter Ex. DW1/1 to DW1/2 in order to safeguard the interest of Government of India and Government companies. He has denied that he misused his power in writing the said letters. This witness has not been cross examined despite opportunity.
23.DW-5 is Sanjeev Aggarwal, Company Secretary of the plaintiff who has brought the summoned record i.e Memorandum and Article of Association of Company (Ex. PW5/1). He has also brought the photocopy of complete personal files i.e Ex. DW5/2 and DW5/3. This witness has deposed that as per the said file no document/letter was written by plaintiff to the Embassy of India at Kualalampur,Malaysia. Testimony of this witness has not been of much help to either party as neither the summoned record is clear nor the witness clearly deposed anything material about the case.
24.I have heard the oral submissions made by both the parties and perused the record carefully. The issue wise findings of the court are as below:-
25.Issue No.6:
" Whether the suit was barred by limitation?"
26. Under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) CPC, the court may try an issue Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 12/24 prior to other issues if it is of opinion that the case may be disposed of on that issue alone. In the case at hand, the court is of the opinion that issue no.6 is such an issue and be decided prior to other issues. As such, court shall first take up the issue no. 6.
27. The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant. The defendant has contended that the suit is time barred as the agreement was executed in the year 1990 while the present suit has been instituted on 26.07.1996. It is further contended that letter dated 05.09.93 does not amount to acknowledgment of liability as stipulated under Section 17, Limitation Act and thus the plaintiff is not entitled to benefit of this section.
28. On the other hand, the plaintiff has contended that the suit is within limitation in view of the letter dated 05.09.1993 by the defendant.
29.Before proceeding further, let us discuss the relevant provisions of the law of limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963 categorically provides that every suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation " shall be dismissed" , notwithstanding that limitation was not set up as a defence. This section casts the duty upon the court to ascertain whether the suit is barred by limitation, and if so then not to proceed Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 13/24 with the case. It is a mandatory provision and the court has no discretion in this matter.
30.The Schdeule to the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that the limitation period for institution of a suit for recovery of money is normally three years. Under Article 29 of the Schedule, the period for limitation for recovery of money on a single bond is three years from the date of execution of the bond. Under Article 30, the money recoverable on a point which is subject to condition is three years from the date of breach of such condition.
31. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has clamied money on basis of the agreement dated 18.05.90, by which the defendant had signed a bond that the service of plaintiff will be for a period of three years failing which they would pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Since the said agreement and bond are dated 18.05.90, it is clear that the suit is time barred having been filed after more than 5 years of execution of the said agreement. Also, the defendant had tendered his resignation by letter dated 10.07.1991. Hence the breach of the condition of the bond took place in the year 1991. Calculated from the said date the suit is barred by limitation.
32.Now the court has to see whether any fresh period of limitation Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 14/24 has accrued in favour of plaintiff under Section 18 Limitation Act. Section 18, Limitation Act stipulates that if an acknowledgment of liability in respect of any property/ right is made in writing and signed by the party against whom such a property/right is claimed, within the period of limitation for such a suit, then a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when such acknowledgment was so signed. Further Section 19 Limitation act says that if a part payment is made on account of debt before expiration of the limitation period by the person liable to pay such a debt, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when such payment was made.
33.The plaintiff has relied upon the letter of the defendant dated 14.04.1993 (Ex. DW2/6) and 05.09.1993 (Ex. DW2/7). The letter Ex. DW2/6 is dated 14.04.1993 and even if it is presumed to be an acknowledgement under Section 19 of the Act, and a fresh period of limitation of three years is calculated from 14.04.1993, it has expired on 15.04.1996, while the suit has been filed on 26.07.1996.
34.Now the court shall examine the letter dated 05.09.93 i.e Ex. DW2/7. A careful examination of this letter shows that instead of acknowledging any amount due on his behalf, the defendant has denied that he is liable to make any payment. He has Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 15/24 stated that he is refunding bond money on his own accord, and after seeking legal advise he will pay any balance money. By no stretch of imagination this letter can be said to be an acknowledgment of defendant's liability to make any payment to the plaintiff.
35.In Jogeshwar vs Ram Narayan, 31 CAL 195 (2000), it was held that if the plaintiff sends a bill to the defendant demanding the price of work done, and he replies that " I think the bill is incorrect. I will examine the work done and then see what, if anything, is due" , then such a letter is not an acknowledgment under Section 18 Limitation Act. An acknowledgment under Section 18 has to be clear and unequivocal which is not the case here. Thus, the court is of the opinion that Ex. DW2/7 does not amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 Limitation Act, and as such no fresh period of limitation has accrued in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
36.In view of the above discussion, the issue no. 6 is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
37.Issue No.1 & 2:-
" Whether the agreement dated 17.05.1990 was obtained by plaintiff under undue influence, coercion, fraud and Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 16/24 misrepresentation, if so, to what effect? OPD"
" Whether the agreement dated 17.05.1990 was a void and voidable agreement as alleged in preliminary objections in the WS and if so, its effect? OPD."
38.Issue no. 1 and 2 are being decided together being interconnected, and requiring same appreciation of evidence and law. The onus of proving these issues was on the defendant.
39.The defendant has contended that he was made to sign the agreement dated 17.05.90 (Ex. PW1/2) under coercion and misrepresentation as he had already been released from the services of Indian Air Force and was left with no other option. He has relied upon Ex. DW3/A, the letter inviting recruitment of pilots in the plaintiff company, accompanied with the brief summary of pay scales, requirements of candidates, and medical and other allowances etc. There is no mention of any condition of probation or of any bond for compulsory service of three years. Further as per Ex. DW3/B, it is proved that the defendant was given premature retirement from the Indian Air Force with effect from 16.05.1990 while the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was signed on 18.05.1990.
40.The defendant has also relied upon Ex. DW4/A which is the Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 17/24 letter dated 13.07.90 written by Air Headquarters to the Managing Director of the plaintiff company conveying the the anguish and resentment of the released officers, regarding the condition of the bond of three years of service,failing which payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also written in this letter that this condition was not a part of the terms and conditons and as such, the objections of the officers is found correct. It is further stated these officers are highly experienced in the helicopters operations and they would have weighed their possibilities had they been aware of these clauses. The plaintiff was requested to look into the matter and take corrective measures accordingly. The plaintiff has not denied this letter.
41.From the collective reading of all these documents, it appears that at the time of taking pre-mature retirement from Indian Air Force, the defendant was not aware of the clause of probation and about the bond of three years service. The defendant's decision to apply for recruitment with plaintiff company was based on the informatin provided under Ex. DW3/A. It was only after being relieved of his services from Indian Air Force that he learnt about these conditions. At that time, he had no option but to join the plaintiff company as pilot.
42.Let us examine the relevant provisions of law at this stage. Section 10 of the India Contract Act 1872, provides that an Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 18/24 agreement is a contract if it is made by free consent of parties comptent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and is not expressely declared to be void. Section 13 of the said Act defines 'consent' as " an agreement to do the same thing in the same sense" . Section 14 further defines 'free consent' as consent which is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. If a consent is obtained by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, then such an agreement is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained (Section 19 Contract Act).
43.In the case at hand, the defendant learnt about the conditions of probation and bond after he was retired from his secure and stable job. Once he was out of employment, he had no option but to join the plaintiff company and sign the agreement Ex.PW1/2. Naturally, he felt cheated and helpless at that time, and signed the agreement under compelling circumstances and not out of his own will. Thus, the consent to the agreement Ex. PW1/2 cannot be said to be free consent. As such, court is of the opinion that agreement dated 17.05.1990 was signed by the defendant under coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation. As such, the agreement Ex. PW1/2 is a voidable contract.
Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 19/24
44.In view of the above discussion, issue no1 and 2 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
45.Issue No.3:-
" Whether the defendant has not availed benefits under the agreement dated 17.05.90 and was not bound by the agreement as alleged in the WS by defendant? OPD."
46.The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant. The defendant has contended that he had not obtained any conversion training from the plaintiff. However, the same has not been proved by any evidence. Infact, in reply to a question, the DW-2 has admitted that after joining the plaintiff, he was given the usual training which was given to commercial pilot, and no extra training was given to him. This deposition alone is not sufficient for the court to arrive at the conculsion that no conversion training was given to the him.
47.Now the next question is whether the defendant is bound by the said agreement or not. Section 19, Indian Contract Act, stipulates that a contract to which the consent is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation is a voidable contract. Section 2(i) Contract Act, defines ' voidable contract' as ' an agreement enforceable by law at the option of one or more party but not at the option of other' . A voidable contract can be Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 20/24 avoided by one of parties if the same falls within the ambit of Section 15 to 19 of the Contract Act. However, if such a party does not exercise this option then the contract remains a valid and subsisting contract. Voidable contract is different from void agreement. While a void agreement is 'void ab initio, i.e void since its very inception, a voidable contract does not become a nullity until and unless it is declared so by a competent court of law. The defendant has not filed any suit for declaration of the contract as null and void till date. Thus, the agreement Ex. PW1/2 is a valid and subsisting contract and the defendant would be bound by the same.
48.In view of the above discussion, the issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plainitff and against the defendant.
49.Issue No.4:-
" Whether Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal had no authority to sign and verify and institute the suit as alleged by defendant? OPD."
50.The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant. The defendant has alleged that Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal has no authority to sign, verify and institute the present suit. However, Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal who has entered the witness box as PW-1 has placed on record the copy of power of attorney i.e Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 21/24 Ex. PW1/7 by which he was appointed as the attorney of the company to prosecute legal proceedings on its behalf. The court is of the opinion that Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal is competent and authorised person to institute the present suit. As such, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
51.Issue No. 5:-
" Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the suit amount as claimed? OPP."
52.The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. The court has already given the finding that the present suit is barred by limitation, and per the mandate of Section 5, Limitation Act, the court cannot proceed with this suit. In view of the same, plaintiff is not entitled to recover of the suit amount the same being time-barred. As such, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
53.Additional Issue:-
" Whether the defendant is entitled to recover back Rs. 85,000/- paid by the defendant allegedly in coercion? OPD."
54.The onus of proving this issue is on the defendant. The Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 22/24 defendant has contended he has made part payment of Rs. 85,000/- under duress because of the letters sent by the Deputy High Commissioner (Ex.DW1/1 to DW1/3), wherein he was threatened that his pass-port and license will be cancelled if he does not make payments to the plaintiff. As his job was under threat, he came to India to make payment to plaintiff. The defendant contends that he is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.85,000/- along with the interest.
55.Let us examine the defendant's claim under Section 3 Limitation Act, first. Admittedly, prior to the institution of this suit, the defendant had never asked the plaintiff to repay the amount of Rs. 85,000/- as paid by him as per the promissory note dated 13.04.1992. The claim has been raised only after the filing of the suit in the year 1996. Also, in none of the letters written by the defedant to the plaintiff or to Indian Embassy in Malaysia had he demanded back the money paid by him. Thus, in court's opinion, the counter claim of the defendant is liable to be dismissed being time-barred.
56. In view of the above discussion, the court has come to the conclusion that defendant's counter claim is also time barred. As such, Additional issue is decided against the defendant.
Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 23/24
57.Issue No.7 " RELIEF"
58.In view of the findings recorded above, the present suit is dismissed. The counter claim of the defendant is also dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27th FEBRUARY 2012 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) CJ-07 (CENTRAL):DELHI Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd vs S. K. Bhatia 24/24