- (1.) THE judgment of the court was delivered by B. DAYAL J.- These three appeals arise out of two suits between the parties. Two of the appeals have been filed by the common defendant while the third by one of the plaintiffs, Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. These appeals have been pending in this court since 1952, mainly because the parties insisted upon bringing lawyers from outside but were unable to decide upon a common date on which lawyers for both the sides were able to attend the court. After all, with great difficulty, the appeals were started on the 6th of December, 1965, and were partly heard on the 7th of December, 1965, also, on which date learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellants had finished their arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents started his case and argued for some time but the cases had to be postponed. Since then, several dates were fixed, but the plaintiffs were unable to bring any counsel to complete the arguments on their behalf. the cases were ultimately fixed for the 9th of May, 1966, and the learned junior counsel who were appearing for the plaintiff-respondent were definitely informed that the date would not be altered. However, an application was again filed for postponement of the cases from the 9th May, 1966, and at the very clear promise on behalf of the learned junior counsel that any date after the 9th May, 1966, would be adhered to and some senior counsel who may be able to argue on the new date would be engaged, the cases were postponed to the 12th of May, 1966, by our order dated the 25th April, 1966, on an application of the same date. However, no one appeared to argue the cases even on the 12th May, 1966, and in view of the fact that the court was about to close for summer vacations, we refused to postpone the cases any further. The result, therefore, is that we have to dispose of these appeals without hearing the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs in the two suits.
(2.) ONE Suit No. 63 of 1949 was filed by Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. against the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. while the other Suit No. 65 of 1949 was filed by Messrs. Behari Lal Ram Charan against the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Before these suits were filed, the defendant, the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. ( hereinafter called the corporation), as well as the two plaintiffs, Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the firm), were being looked after by the Gupta group and the Singhania group jointly with the result that the accounts of all the three were being mixed with each other and mutual open and current accounts were maintained in the corporation, the company and the firm showing debit and credit balances in favour of each other. But by means of an award of two groups separated their interests so that the corporation became the exclusive concern of the Singhania group of the company as well as the firm because the exclusive concerns of the Gupta group and it became necessary thereafter to settle the mutual accounts. In order to do so, both the groups appointed one officer each to look into the accounts and to negotiate on matters of different. On behalf of the corporation one Shri N.L. V. Subramaniyam was directed to go into the accounts officer was similarly appointed and correspondence started between the two officers. Being unable to come to a common agreement, correspondence stopped and the company files Suit No. 63 of 1949, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,56,207-9-6 with pendente lite and future interest. Apart from stating the history of the dealings between the parties, the plaint went on to say that an open and current account was being maintained by the plaintiff with regard to dealings with the defendant and that on demand of the balance of the amount due, the defendant paid on the 16th November, 1944, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,96,110-11-6, particular of which are shown in schedule A to the plaint. A further sum as interest was also claimed and a sum of Rs. 7,709-2-6 was also credited to this account. It was alleged that the cause of action arose in respect of each debit entry on the date when it was made and then in November, 1944, when after adjustment of payments, a sum of Rs. 2,96,110-11-6 was found due to the plaintiff, and then in June, 1946, and June, 1947, when after making adjustment of sums due to the defendant, details of which are given in schedule B attached to he plaint, the balance now sued for still remained due. The suit having been filed on the 13th April, 1949, when after making adjustment of sums due to the defendant, details of which are given in schedule B attached to the plaint, the balance now sued for still remained due. The suit having been filed on the 13th April, 1949, was claimed to be within limitation on account of letters acknowledging liability one of which dated the 16th of April, 1946, has been filed and is the main bone of contention in the two suits. Several defences were taken including that the suit was barred by time and that the letter dated the 16th of April, 1946, did not amount to an acknowledgment both because it was not written by a person who had an authority to do so behalf of the corporation and also on account of the fact that the letter itself did not amount to an acknowledgement of any larger sum which may be found due on taking accounts.
(3.) THE other Suit No. 65 of 1949 was filed by the company on similar allegations and also claiming limitation from the same letter dated the 16th of April, 1946, treating it as an acknowledgement of liability and prayed for a decree of Rs. 72,595-4-6. Similar defences were taken in this case also. The court below after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the letter amounted to an acknowledgement and after going into accounts decreed Suit No. 63 of 1949 of a sum of Rs. 2,82,734- 11-3 with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest at 3 per cent. per annum. The court also decreed Suit No. 65 of 1949, for a sum of Rs. 47,660-1-3 with 6 per cent. simple interest per annum, the total amounting to Rs. 50,005-2-9 with pendente lite and future interest at 3 per cent. per annum. Against these decrees, the corporation has filed two Appeals Nos. 441 of 1950 against Suit No. 63 of 1949, filed by the company and Appeal No. 442 of 1950 against Suit No. 65 of 1949, filed by the firm, challenging the decrees passed against the defendant corporation. The third Appeal No. 198 of 1952 has been filed by the company against the dismissal of a part of its suit.;