Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. It is also further submission of the learned Advocate General that mere fact that the claimant wrote letters starting from 2010 to 2015 raising some issues, the same cannot be a reason for the postponement of accrual of cause of action.

Hence, it is is contention that the cause of action has already arose in this case when the Independent Engineer was approached. In other words, even according https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Original Petition Nos.124 & 285 of 2021 to him, the actual cause of action is on the date of constructive knowledge and not on any later dates. It is his further contention that when the Independent Engineer has rejected the claim of the claimant in the year 2011, when the claimant had constructive knowledge, he ought have referred the dispute within a period of three years, which has not been done so. With regard to limitation aspect, the learned Advocate General had relied on the following judgments :

28. Admittedly, in this case, on the basis of recommendation of the Independent Engineer, the TNRDC has rejected the claim only on 24.02.2015. The work was completed on 15.06.2013. The Provisional completion certificate was issued on 08.04.2014. Further, the subsequent agreement was also executed between the parties on 04.06.2014. At any event, even as per the Concession Agreement dated 05.12.2009, completion of work will be the starting point for limitation or the date of extension of time, will be the cause of action. Admittedly, in this case, notice of invocation issued on 19.11.2015 is well within the period of three years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim is barred by limitation. The contention of the learned Advocate General in this regard cannot be countenanced. No doubt in the judgment relied upon the learned Advocate General in Panchu Gopal Bose V. Board of Trustees reported in [1993] 4 SCC 338 in para 11 the Honourable Apex Court has held that the period of limitation commences from the date on which, had there been no arbitration clause, the cause of action would have accrued. Just as in this case of actions the claim is not be brought after the expiration of a specified number of years from the date on which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Original Petition Nos.124 & 285 of 2021 the cause of action accrued, so in the cases of arbitration, the claim is not be put forward after the expiration of the specified number of years from the date when the claim accrued. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the above judgment. Whereas, in the given case, as indicated above the very contract has been completed in the year 2013 and the arbitration has been invoked within a period of three years. Similarly, the Independent Engineer was never empowered to deny the monetary claim to show that the claim is totally barred by limitation. In a judgment relied upon by the Advocate General in Haward & Ors V. Fawcetts & anr. reported in [2006] UKHL 9 to the effect that the constructive knowledge also gives rise to cause of action is also no help to the Government. In the judgment in Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in AIR 1988 SC 1007 in paregraph No.4, it has been held that the parties cannot postpone the accrual of cause of action by writing reminders. Absolutely there is no dispute over the above judgment. In this case, though the parties have rightly invoked Article 44 for conciliation after rejection by TNRDC on 24.02.2015 and conciliation was invoked on 20.03.2015 and on 18.09.2015 conciliation failed between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Original Petition Nos.124 & 285 of 2021 Advocate General in this regard is rejected.