Short history:
1. Our soleproprietorshuip firm purchased materials on 4.1.93 from a State Government undertaking
2. Payment made by post dated cheque.
3. Our firm closed in 1996.
4. On or around 304.12 (app. 20 years after date of transaction) received a legal notice from the lawyets of Gpvt undertaking that a civil suit has been filed in Calcutta High Court (Original side) for recovery of sum of Rs. 10 lac and as follow:
Orice of goods sold on 4.1.1993: Rs. 3 lacs
Interest upto 31.3.1996: Rs. 2.75 lacs
Damages claimed: Rs. 5.00 lacs
Total : Rs. 10.75 lacs
5. No papers available with us as firm closed app. 18 years back.
6. Came to know about existence of suit (filed on 15.7.1996) after 16 years of filing of suit .
7. From the documents exhibited by Plffs. And oral evidence, it is proved that all payments used to be by post dated cheques before issue of delivery orders.\
8. No whisper of payment by post dated cheques in the plaint.
9. Court says that as because public money is involved, defendants must produce documents to prove that payment is made by us. – how possible to produce documents of transactions which tool place before 20 years.
Quries
1. Whether the suit is maintenable in High Court (Jurisdiction: above 10 lacs), when the original price of goods were only Rs. 3 lacs and rest of the items added to make it above 10 lacs so that the jurisdiction of high court is availed. Can we challenge the suit on this point.
2. What is the limitation period for filing of suit by a State Government undertaking.
3. In cross examination, it is admitted by the plaintiffs that post dated cheques were received by them. But claims that the cheques might have been dishonoured, that’s why the claim. Wnen asked, why the dishonored cheques are not deposited in Court, no answer.
4. Can the Court presurrize us to produce documents for a transaction made 20 years back and knowledge of suit comes to our notice after 18 years and the firm is closed in 1996.
