Case: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta

is under the absolute control of the Central Government, nonetheless, it shall not be construed as the Central Government for the reason that the appellant-company is a separate legal entity. It also cannot claim that it is entitled to the benefit under Article 112 of the Limitation Act on the ground that a debt recoverable from the subscriber is an actionable claim in terms of Section 3 of the TP Act, even if the same has been transferred under Section 130 of the TP Act by execution of the Office Memorandum, referred to supra, thereby vesting in it the rights and the remedies vis-a-vis the same. No doubt, by execution of the said instrument it has got the actionable claim transferred, the assets that must be recoverable debts from the debtors and subscribers. As could be seen from the claim, the undisputed facts of these appeals are that on the date of the transfer, some of the claims were time barred, therefore, the company cannot construe that the time barred debts are also an actionable claim by way of transfer in its favour, which entitles it to avail the benefit of Section 112 of the Limitation Act i.e. the period of thirty years to institute suits for recovery of the same. Such an interpretation is contrary to Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. A careful reading of Article 112 of the Limitation Act clearly reveals that in any suit (except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government, including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the period of limitation would be thirty years. The period of limitation time from which the period begins to run is mentioned under Column 3 of the above Article of the Limitation in the Schedule, which reads as follows. “When the period of limitation would begin to run under this Act against a like suit by a private person.” By a careful reading of the aforesaid Article, it makes abundantly clear, that a suit can be instituted by or on behalf of the Central Government. It is not the case of the appellant herein that it has filed the suit on behalf of the Central Government. This is for the reason that the appellant-company has instituted the suit on the basis of the instrument of Office Memorandum wherein the DoT has transferred its assets and actionable claims. It cannot be said that it has filed the suit on behalf of the Central Government because the appellant/plaintiff is a company, a distinctly independent and separate entity. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the aforesaid Article 112 of the Limitation Act to claim that there would be thirty years of limitation period as the asset transferred is an actionable claim due to the DoT is wholly misconceived in law. The other argument advanced by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant-company that it is an agency or instrumentality under the Central Government which falls within the inclusive definition as defined under Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act is wholly misconceived for the reason that Article 112 of the Limitation Act speaks of the Central Government or the State Government. Its agencies or instrumentalities are not incorporated under Article 112 of the Limitation Act. Such an argument is contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Ors. vs. State of T.N. and Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment it is categorically stated that the legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process and the Court cannot do the legislative functions. Para 14 of the said judgment reads thus: “14. While interpreting a provision the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. (See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 515. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope for reading something into it, as was done in Narasimhaiahs case, (1996) 3 SCC 88. In Nanjudaiahs case, (1996) 10 SCC 619 , the period was further stretched to have the time period run from date of service of High Courts order. Such a view cannot be reconciled with the language of Section 6(1). If the view is accepted it would mean that a case can be covered by not only clauses (i) and/or (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1), but also by a non-prescribed period. Same can never be the legislative intent.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court) In the connected matter i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2409/2009, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of A.K. Bindal & Anr. vs. U.O.I. & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 163 paras 5, 14 and 17 and Food Corporation of India vs. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad & Anr., (1999) 6 SCC 74 , in support of the contention that the expressions Central Government or State Government in terms of Section 3(8) and Section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act do not include in their purview or definition their agencies or instrumentalities. In view of the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the legal contention urged by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant being the agency or instrumentality of the Central Government is entitled to maintain the suit claims within thirty years as provided under Article 112 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act or alternatively, whatever the limitation period which was available for the Central Government, within three years from the date of execution of the agreement are wholly unsustainable in law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Civil Appeal Nos. 1085/2008 andview of the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the legal contention urged by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant being the agency or instrumentality of the Central Government is entitled to maintain the suit claims within thirty years as provided under Article 112 of the Schedule in the Limitation Act or alternatively, whatever the limitation period which was available for the Central Government, within three years from the date of execution of the agreement are wholly unsustainable in>In our considered view, the questions a, d, e and f framed by the appellant Company in the Memorandum of Appeal would not arise as substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 of CPC for the consideration of this Court, in its statutory appeal having regard to the undisputed fact that the Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact on the basis of the relevant clauses of the interconnect agreement between the parties and also with reference to the legal contentions urged on behalf of the appellant that it, being an instrumentality of the Central Government, is entitled to the protection under Article 112 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, it was covered by the limitation period of 30 years. The said contention is not tenable in law for the reasons already enumerated in the earlier part of this judgment.Therefore, the finding of fact recorded rejecting the aforesaid contention by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid. The same cannot be re-agitated by the appellant Company by framing the substantial questions of law namely a, d, e and f. The said finding is based on proper interpretation of undisputed facts and the relevant clauses of the interconnect agreement and relevant clauses of the Schedule in the Limitation Act.Insofar as the substantial questions framed at b & c in the memorandum of appeal filed are concerned, they also cannot be termed as substantial question of law as it is a question of finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal particularly having regard to the undisputed fact that the Tribunal on the same day of pronouncement of judgment, has awarded interest on the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- payable after the reconciliation of the account that is required to be done by the parties. The said amount was deposited by virtue of an interim order granted by the Tribunal not to disconnect the connection of the respondent, as the disconnection notice issued by the appellant Company was stayed by the Tribunal and such direction was subject to payment of interest etc. on the amount of deposit repayable by the appellant Company after reconciliation and adjustment of the amount legally due to the respondent. That means, the claim of the appellant is not within the period of limitation and therefore, the same do not constitute and cannot be termed as substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court and answer thereof.