SHELAT - (1.) , J.: Prior to 18/01/1944 M/s Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-company), Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the corporation), J. K. Limited, Beharilal Kailashpat India Supplies, Northern India Trading Co., and Northern India Brush Manufacturing Co. Ltd., were all jointly managed by two groups, who may conveniently be called the Singhania and the Gupta groups. Disputes having arisen between them, they were referred to arbitration by a deed of reference, dated 9/12/1943. It is not necessary to go into the details of the award, dated 18/01/1944, by which these disputes were adjudicated upon except that from and after the date of the award the aforesaid concerns were brought under the management and control of one or the other of the sold two groups. The corporation come under the control and management of the Singhania group.
(2.) CL. 9 of the award provided as follows: "The above award or directions in respect of Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd., J. K. Ltd, Beharilal Kailashpat India Supplies, Nortern India Trading Co. and Northern India Brush Manufacturing Co. do not cover the advances which either party or their separate firms may have made to all or any of them or their moneys which may be in deposit with them and they shall be payable and paid in their usual course." According to the appellants, there existed in their trading books accounts in respect off amounts advanced or spent by them for the corporation in respect of which Cl (9) of the award specifically made provision for and also for interest due thereon. After the award was made the appellant company sent a statement of accounts to the corporation but this was objected to on the ground that the appellant company during the course of the previous joint management of the corporation had not properly maintained the accounts and that several items were either not properly accounted for or entered into. Correspondence thereafter ensued between the patties. The parties also appointed their respective officers to meet and reconcile their respective accounts the corporation being represented by its Secretary -cum-Chief Accountant, one Subramananyam, and the appellant-company sometimes by one Arora and at other times by one Newatia, Since no settlement could be arrived at the appellants filed two suits claiming Rs. 3,56,207.9.6 and Rs. 72,595.4.6 from the corporation being Suit Nos. 63 and 65 of 1949. In para14 of the plaint in Suit No, 63 of 1949, it was claimed that the suit was within time as alter adjustment of several items in 1946 and 1947 a sum of Rs. 2,96,l10,11.6 was found due to the appellant-company and that in any event the suit was saved from being barred by limitation by a letter dated 16/04/1946 addressed by the said Subramanayam, thereby acknowledging the liability of the corporation to pay the amount which would be found due and payable under the said accounts. Similar averments were also made in the plaint in Suit No. 65 of 1949. The written statements filed by the corporation inter alia pleaded that the said claims were barred by limitation that the said letter did not amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which was then applicable to the suits and lastly, that even if the said letter did amount to an acknowledgement, it was not binding on the corporation as the said Subramanayam had no authority to make any such acknowledgement for and on behalf of and binding on the corporation.
(3.) ON the question of limitation, the Trial Court raised three questions for its determination; (1) whether the letter (Ex 1) was binding on the corporation, (2) whether it amounted to an acknowledgement, and (3) if so, whether it would extend the period of limitation so as to save the claims made by the appellants from being barred. ON consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court held in favour of the appellants on all the three questions and passed decrees in both the suits. Three appeals were filed in the High Court against those decrees, two by the corporation and the third by the appellant-company as the claim allowed in its favour was for a reduced amount. As framed by the High Court, the question common to all the three appeals was whether the said letter (Ex. 1 amounted to an acknowledgement extending the period of limitation. The High Court, on consideration of the correspondence between the parties and the other evidence, reached the conclusion that the letter (Ex.1) was "merely explanatory" and was not meant to bind the corporation, that mean if it did amount to "some kind of acknowledgement", its author, the said Subrmnanayam, had no authority to acknowledge any debt or liability on behalf of the corporation. In this view the High Court held the two suits barred by limitation and allowed the corporation's appeals. It rejected the appellant-company's appeal and dismissed the two suits. Hence these three appeals under certificates granted by the High Court.;