: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.484 OF 2010 Seinumero Engg. India Ltd. ... Appellant V/s. Yatin S. Tambe & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.N. Chandrachood for Appellant Mr.U.B. Nighot for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 29, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.389 of 2006. The suit has been dismissed on 25.3.2009. The trial Court has held that the suit has not been filed within a period of limitation and therefore dismissed the suit. 2. The appellant contends that respondent No.1 was employed by them for some time and a loan was advanced to him. The suit has been filed on 9.3.2006. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was a tacit acceptance by the Respondent No.1 that his dues by way of gratuity and encashment should be adjusted towards the repayment of the loan. This was done in December 2006 according to the appellant and therefore, the suit has been filed within limitation. : 2 : 3. In my opinion, the trial Court has considered this aspect of the matter correctly. The trial Court has held that there was no acceptance or consent given by respondent No.1 for the adjustment of his dues payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore the suit had not been filed within limitation. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the judgement and order impugned in this Appeal. 4. Appeal dismissed.