Anita Aggarwal vs Kharanand & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1783 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                       Date of Reserve: February 15, 2010
                                                            Date of Order: April 06, 2010
+ CM(M) 200/2010
%                                                                             06.04.2010
     Anita Aggarwal                                                    ...Petitioner
     Through: Mr. M. Bansal, Advocate

         Versus

         Kharanand & Ors.                                              ...Respondents
         Through: nemo


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                                             Yes.

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                     Yes.


         JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th December 2009 of learned Additional

District Judge whereby the trial court decided the preliminary issue regarding

limitation and held that the suit filed by the respondents herein was not barred by

limitation.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the

petitioner was appointed as an agent by the respondents no.2 and 3 i.e. Chief Post

Master and National Saving Organization respectively. The petitioner approached

different customers for sale of Kisan Vikas Patras(KVPs) on behalf of respondent no. 2

and 3. In the process, the petitioner received consideration for issuance of KVPs. She

issued receipts on behalf of respondent no.2, regarding receiving consideration. As

per the terms and conditions of agency, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the

amount received from different customers with respondent no.2. The amount being

received by her against receipt in fact was received on behalf of respondent no.2

herein, who was the principal and receipts were also being issued by her on behalf of

CM(M) 200/2010 Anita Aggarwal v. Kharanand & Ors. Page 1 Of 4 respondent no.2.

3. Respondent no.1 intended to purchase KVPs and the petitioner being the

authorized agent of respondent no.2 was contacted by respondent no.1 and he

handed over a sum of Rs.1.90 lac against receipt executed by the petitioner on behalf

of respondent no.2. The amount was paid on 28th June, 2004. The petitioner assured

respondent no.1 that KVPs of the consideration amount shall be sent to by post to

him. When respondent no.1 did not receive KVPs, he made a complaint on 15.9.2004

to respondent no.2 about non-receipt of KVPs. In September 2004, respondent no.1

also lodged a police complaint against petitioner after learning from newspapers

about her other frauds. The petitioner received a reply from the Post Master on 22nd

July, 2005 wherein it was stated that on receipt of complaint of petitioner, the matter

was being inquired and the department had constituted an inquiry committee for this

purpose. It was admitted by Chief Post Master that the petitioner Smt. Anita Aggarwal

and her family members were authorized agents authorized by National Saving

Organization under Ministry of Finance and the authorized agents were issued receipt

books provided by National Saving Organization and the receipts were given by

petitioner to the investors. It was the duty of the authorized agent to deposit

cash/cheque received by her in the post office giving receipt number. However, it was

found that in case of respondent no.1 (plaintiff before the trial court), the agent had

given a duly signed manuscript receipt in token of receiving money and receipts of

amount of Rs.1.90 lac was acknowledged by the petitioner for purchasing KVPs but

the amount received from the complainant was not deposited by the petitioner with

Post Office and it appeared that she misappropriated the amount of Rs.1.90 lac of the

complainant/ respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioner

and against the National Saving Organization and the Chief Post Master on 28 th

February 2008.

4. In the written statement, the petitioner took a stand that the suit was barred

by limitation. The learned ADJ framed a preliminary issue about limitation and

CM(M) 200/2010 Anita Aggarwal v. Kharanand & Ors. Page 2 Of 4 observed that the limitation has to be counted from the date of receipt of letter from

the Chief Post Master and not from the date of filing of police complaint and upheld

that the suit was within the period of limitation.

5. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as far as petitioner was

concerned, the limitation would start from the date she received money and the

acknowledgment relied upon by the respondent no.1 was not an acknowledgment on

behalf of the petitioner and at the most it was acknowledgment on behalf of

respondent no.2 i.e. Chief Post Master and the petitioner was not bound by this

acknowledgment. The acknowledgment of principal could not be read against the

agent.

6. There is no doubt that the period of limitation for filing the suit is three years.

The limitation would start from the date of cause of action. In the present case, the

respondent no.1 paid money to the petitioner who was an agent of respondent no.2

for purchase of KVPs. He was supposed to wait as the delivery of the KVPs was to be

made by respondent no.2 after deposit of this money with respondent no.2. When he

did not receive KVPs, he made a complaint to Chief Post Master about non receipt of

KVPs. The cause of action could arise as against respondent no.1 only when he

received a definite reply on 22nd July, 2005 from Chief Post Master that the money

paid by him had not been deposited with the Chief Post Master or National Saving

Organization and therefore no KVPs were issued. The cause of action thus crystallized

on 22nd July, 2005. The cause of action did not crystallize just by making payment of

money to petitioner as the amount paid by respondent no.1 was not a loan but it was

an amount paid to the agent for depositing with the principal for issuance of KVPs to

be issued in due course of time. The non-issuance of KVPs for the amount and the

reasons thereon were communicated to the petitioner on 22 nd July, 2005. It is then

only that the respondent no.1 could have filed a suit. The plea taken by the petitioner

that since the respondent no.1 had filed a complaint with the police, the respondent

no.1 had knowledge that the petitioner had not deposited the amount with the Post

CM(M) 200/2010 Anita Aggarwal v. Kharanand & Ors. Page 3 Of 4 Master and the date of police complaint would be a time for start of limitation. I

consider this was not correct. A complaint made on the basis of news report without

having a reply to his letter from the principal, could not give rise to cause of action. It

was quite possible that the agent had deposited his money with the principal. The

cause of action therefore arose only when the information was received from the

authentic source that is respondent no.2 about non-deposit of money by petitioner

with respondent no.2. The newspaper reports cannot be considered as an authentic

information and cannot be a starting point of limitation.

7. I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no orders

as to costs.

April 06, 2010                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 200/2010   Anita Aggarwal v. Kharanand & Ors.                       Page 4 Of 4