Summary
The Court dismissed review petitions concerning delayed-payment interest claims against the Assam State Electricity Board. Shanti Conductors had not pleaded and proved the acknowledgment necessary for a fresh limitation period under Section 19. Other petitioners showed neither post-commencement supplies nor an apparent error in the prior maintainability ruling. Review could not become a rehearing of decided issues.
Issues
- Whether Section 19 or Section 14 supplied an apparent error in the limitation ruling.
- Whether a later bill date proved supply after commencement of the 1993 Act.
- Whether partial grant of interest on High Court review justified reopening the maintainability ruling.
Provisions considered
- Section 19, Limitation Act, 1963Payment within limitation requires the prescribed written or signed acknowledgment, with necessary facts pleaded and proved to claim a fresh period. (¶¶ 9, 12, 13, 14, 19)
- Order VII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A plaint filed beyond the ordinary period must disclose exemption grounds; the proviso did not assist where the new claim conflicted with the pleaded basis. (¶¶ 11, 12, 18)
Held
- The plaint mentioned the last payment but pleaded no acknowledgment to support Section 19. It instead asserted that the special Act excluded limitation altogether; the proviso to Order VII Rule 6 did not cure this inconsistent basis. No apparent error arose in holding the suit time-barred. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 18, 19)
- Section 14 had already been considered and rejected because the writ was brought by the Association, a different entity. The suit preceded disposal of that writ, and a further writ appeal also detracted from the asserted conditions. Review supplied no basis to reopen the issue. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- A bill dated after the 1993 Act’s commencement did not establish that the corresponding materials were supplied after commencement. The record therefore disclosed no apparent error in denying statutory interest in review petition 789. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- The High Court’s partial review granted 9% interest on other legal bases while retaining rejection of entitlement under the 1993 Act. Maintainability of the later appeal had already been decided; no apparent error justified review. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- Review has a limited purpose and cannot serve as an appeal in disguise to reargue questions already addressed and decided. (¶ 21)
Result
All review petitions—786–787, 789 and 788 of 2019—dismissed. The common judgment of 23 January 2019 remained undisturbed.