Respected learned practitioners of law, Myself Mr. Chirag Patel from Jalaram Plastics. Ours is a family owned business into plastic items. I am mentioning the facts one by one: We hired a fresher B. Tech pass student on date 03 Feb 2010. It was agreed that we shall train him for a period of 3 months. Accordingli he was under-training from 03-Feb 2010 upto 05 May 2010. We signed a employment bond with that employee stating that he shall work of us for a period of 1 year after completing his training , else pay Rs. 1 lakhs within 30 days of leaving job if he left the job without doing 1 year work. However, he simply absconded without verbal/written communications on 19 May 2010. He also never offered to pay the Rs. 1 lakhs as per bond given by him. Now my question is whether we can file suit against him in Court to recover the Rs. one lakh plus any interest for breach of contract? We have two lawyers whom we consult regularly. One of them(Adv. Dubey ji) is of the opinion that the suit for recovery of money is time-barred and therefore he is advising us not to waste any time and money in sending any legal notice of filing Suit. On the other hand, another lawyer(Adv. Kotwal ji) is of the opinion that Sec. 22 of the Limitation Act is applicable as it is a case of continuing breach of contract till the time one-year service or Rs. 1 Lakhs is not paid. So he is encouraging us to do the next procedure. I request learned lawyers to give their advice whether Sec. 22(continuing breach) is applicable and whether we should proceed, or is it time-barred.
Section 22 of the Limitation Act would not come to your rescue inasmuch as there is no continuous breach of contract in this particular case. The cause of action arose for you on 19th May, 2010, when this fellow absconded from work and this is not a case of continuous breach. It will be very difficult for you to explain the delay.
Having said that, if you are sporty, you can still take a chance and give a free hand to Kotwal Ji to pursue this matter.
your lawyer (Adv. Kotwal Ji) is partially right when he says that the same happens to be the continuing cause of action in light of section 22 of the Limitation Act.
You will though have to shoe to the court that you ere taking few steps in between. You may send a legal notice to initiate the process.
Regards
you can send legal notice to absconder to pay Rs 1 lakh as he failed to serve for period of one year after training
2) however dont file suit to recover money as your claim would be barred by limitation
3) seven years have elapsed since he left the company . you ought to have instiuted recovery suit within period of 3 years
Forgot to add: Our Adv Kotwal ji says that the the employee continues to breach the contract till date because he has failed to perform his obligation till date under the contract. Therefore, the wrong is continuing till date. So sec. 22 is applicable according to him. However, Adv. Dubey ji counters this point by saying that the above argument can be applied to any and every breach of any contract such as recovery of debt, cheque bounce, etc. Thus, because effects of the 'wrongs' committed have indefinite life, breaches of contracts of any nature will have unlimited limitation period. And this is against the purpose of limitation law. If Sec 22 can be applied to every continuing wrong, then the whole Limitations act would become meaningless.
i agree with your advocate Mr Dubey that claim is barred by limitation
I would definitely agree with the advise of Dubey Ji. the suit is barred by limitation, filing a case will be a futile exercise. though you can send a legal notice.
This is my final advise, after studying the law in detail.
thanks and regards
I stand by the opinion of Dubey Ji, but I'll again say, that if Kotwali Ji is confident of pulling this off, you can go ahead and take a chance.
Be a sport.
Sir the recovery is time barred. If somehow it is managed and limitation is exempted even then he is ansconding and duty will be on you to find him. If you can find him only then think of filing any case, else forget it.
Sir, in your case you will be unable to file a case for time barred. Since time limitation for filing recovery suit is 3 years from the date of cause of action and in your case you have a delay of another 3 years.
If your lawyer is confident then you can file the case. But first try to find out whether you can get the correct address of the default person .
Hope my reply helps you.
Learned Mr. Dubey ji is correct. don't waste money.
you may file a case to teach the person a lesson but there is a least chance to recover money that's also by spending more than your claim.
respected sir..
your legal advisor mr dubey ji is right that ther is a fix time period for filling these types of suit and that time period is over nw .so all in vane plz dont waste your money as well as time..
Thanku
Sorry to say, the Recovery Suit would be time-barred. The Cause of Action arose for filing the Suit when your trainee absconded. If section 22 of the Limitation Act is to be applied in the present case, the maximum time when the injury would be continuous would be till the completion of 1 year of promised work, being till 3rd May, 2011. This is because it was agreed that he would work for you immediately after completing his training of 3 months. Therefore, even if limitation is counted from this time, a suit for recovery in the present case would be hit by the Laws of Limitation.
Section 22 is applied in cases where the injury occurs on a day-to-day basis, e.g., a tenant sub-letting the premises, contrary to the terms of Tenancy Agreement. in this case, since the sub-tenant is occupying the premises on a day-to-day basis, this is a continuous breach of the tenancy agreement, and the Limitation would restart everyday.
Now my question is whether we can file suit against him in Court to recover the Rs. one lakh plus any interest for breach of contract?
You can file a money recovery suit against the deserted employee, you can first terminate his employment for absconding and deserting the employment.
You may follow your second lawyer's opinion in this regard.
However, Adv. Dubey ji counters this point by saying that the above argument can be applied to any and every breach of any contract such as recovery of debt, cheque bounce, etc. Thus, because effects of the 'wrongs' committed have indefinite life, breaches of contracts of any nature will have unlimited limitation period. And this is against the purpose of limitation law. If Sec 22 can be applied to every continuing wrong, then the whole Limitations act would become meaningless.
There is nothing wrong in pursuing the recovery matter under section 22 of Indian evidence act.
The provisions of section 22 of the limitation act states that :
22. Continuing breaches and torts.—In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues. 22. Continuing breaches and torts.—In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues."