P. K. BHARI ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery- of Rs. 2,00,000. 00, Plaintiff, which is a duly registered partnership firm, through its registered partner Sh. Satish Chand Bansal had instituted the present suit against M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. on the averments that the plaintiff had supplied oil to the said defendant of the value of Rs. l,26,291/32p during the year 1969 and the plaintiff had opened its account in the name of the said defendant in its books of accounts and all the supplies made from time to time were duly entered in the said books of accounts and even the said defendant has been showing the same entries in its own books of accounts from year to year admitting and acknowledging its liability of the said amount. It is mentioned that the defendant vide its registered letter dated July 17, 1978 admitted that the plaintiff is shown as a creditor in the books of accounts of the said defendant on account of the oil supplies made by the plaintiff and wanted the plaintiff to file its claim in order to enable the said defendant to make the payment to the plaintiff and the defendant further assured that the defendant-company proposes to pay off all its creditors the principal amount in full and final settlement. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is stated to have sent the claim vide registered letter dated August 29, 1978. The defendant-company wrote back vide its letter dated 16/ 17th November 1978 admitting the claim of the plaintiff and disputed only claim of Rs. 322/70p. In this way, it is averred that the said defendant duly admitted and acknowledged its liability to pay the amount of Rs. 1,25,298/62p. Plaintiff is stated to have supplied a copy of the statement of account to the said defendant duly certified by chartered accountant as requested by the said defendant on August 24, 1979, but despite repeated requests the money had not been paid. The plaintiff had also filed a company petition but the said petition failed on account of technical objection. The management of the said company was taken over by the the Central Government under Section 18 (AA) of the Industries Development Regulation Act. The plaintiff claimed interest @ 12% per annum. The plaintiff had also filed a company petition but the said petition failed on account of technical objection. The management of the said company was taken over by the the Central Government under Section 18 (AA) of the Industries Development Regulation Act. The plaintiff claimed interest @ 12% per annum. ( 3 ) THE said defendant contested the suit in which it was admitted that the said company s management is under the Board appointed by the Centra! Government under the Industries Development and Regulation Act and on merits pleaded that the account books of the defendant-company did not show a credit balance of Rs. I,26,291/32p in favour of the plaintiff. In the alternative the plea taken was that even if there was an entry in the books of the defendant-firm showing any amount due to the plaintiff the same does not amount to admission in favour of the plaintiff. The exchange of correspondence , as mentioned in the plaint, was admitted but the plea taken was that that correspondence took place in order to verify whether any amount was due to the plaintiff or not. It was pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. ( 4 ) IT is significant to mention that in the whole of the written statement no plea has been taken that the plaintiff has not been making supplies of oil as claimed by the plaintiff. It is also not disclosed that if the credit balance is not in the sum of Rs. l,26,291/32p shown in the books of account of the defendant as to what credit balance, in fact, appears in the books of account of the defendant. In replication the plaintiff reiterated its pleas and controverted that the suit is barred by limitation. ( 5 ) IT appears that during the pendency of the suit vide Ganesh Flour Mills (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984, published in the Gazette on January 28, 1984, the Ganesh Flour Mills and the right, title and interest of Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. in relation to Ganesh Flour Mills stood transferred and vested in the Central Government. It also provided for determination of amount equal to sum of Rs. 1,57,68. 000. 00 as the compensation for acquisition of the said Ganesh Flour Mills and the Central Government was also to pay an amount calculated @ Rs. 10,000. Ltd. in relation to Ganesh Flour Mills stood transferred and vested in the Central Government. It also provided for determination of amount equal to sum of Rs. 1,57,68. 000. 00 as the compensation for acquisition of the said Ganesh Flour Mills and the Central Government was also to pay an amount calculated @ Rs. 10,000. 00 per month for the deprivation of the company of the management of the Ganesh Flour Mills for the period commencing on the date of taking over of the management and ending with the date of the appointed day of vesting of the said Ganesh Flour Mills with the Central Government. The Ordinance also provided for appointment of Commissioner of Payments and claims were to be filed by the creditors before the said Commissioner of Payments within specified period and then the Commissioner of Payments was to obtain the approval of the claims and was to then give its finding with regard to the correctness of the claim or otherwise and such an order was subject to challenge by filing an appeal. Trte amounts which were to be found due to the various claimants were to be paid out of the amount given by the Central Government as compensation for acquiring the said Ganesh Flour Mills. However, Section 4 ( (6) of the Ordinance clearly laid down that any suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending in relationto Ganesh Flour Mills shall not abate or be discontinued in any way and the same shall continue, prosecuted and enforced against the Central Government or where Ganesh Flour Mills vests in any Government Company then against the Government Company. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER, the Ordinance was converted into Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984. Ganesh Flour Mills admittedly has now vested in M/s. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. which has been joined as defendant No. 2 by amendment of the plaint. Defendant No. 2 has contested the suit pleading that defendant No. 2 is not at all liable for any amount due to the plaintiff from defendant No. l. It also took the plea that the suit is not maintainable as under the statute the claims are to be filed with the Commissioner of Payments and the plaintiff ought to have filed its claim before the said Commissioner of Payments. Following issues were framed: 1. Following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff-firm is a registered partnership firm and the person filing the suit is its registered partner? 2. Whether the plaintiff had supplied oil to defendant- company? If so, of what value? 3. Whether the suit is within limitation? 4. . Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and to what amount? 5. Relief. ( 7 ) AFTER defendant No. 2 was impleaded as one of the defedants, following additional issue was framed: ( 8 ) WHETHER the suit is maintainable against defendant No. 2 in view of the provisions of Ganesh Flour Mills (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984? ISSUE NO. 1 ( 9 ) EX. PUBLIC Witness 2/1 is the certified copy of form A which shows that the plaintiff was a duly registered partnership firm. This firm came into existence in 1963 Init was dissolved in 1975 vide Dissolution Deed Ex. Public Witness 2/l. Dull Chand, who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit on behalf of the registered partnership firm is one of the registered partners. Amended plaint was signed by Public Witness 2 Satish Bansal who is also one of the registered partners. The learned counsel for the defendant has not raised any arguments on this issue. So, 1 decide this issue in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUES NOS. 2 and 3 ( 10 ) ISSUES 2 and 3 would be dealt with together. Public Witness 2 had proved on record Ex. Public Witness 2/3, copy of the Journal showing the amount due from defendant No. 1 in one account to the tune of Rs. 20,968/62p and E. X. Public Witness 2/4 copy of another account showing the amount due as Rs. 1,05,000/ on another account. It appears that the plaintiff had made certain supplies directly to defendant No. 1 and certain supplies had been got made from third parties on behalf of the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. He proved also the correspondence exchanged between the parties that Ex. P1/1 letter of defendant No. l dated July 17, 1978, Ex. Public Witness 2/5 copy of the reply sent by the plaintiff dated August 29, 1978, Ex. Public Witness 2/6 another letter of defendant No. l dated November 17, 1978 and Ex. He proved also the correspondence exchanged between the parties that Ex. P1/1 letter of defendant No. l dated July 17, 1978, Ex. Public Witness 2/5 copy of the reply sent by the plaintiff dated August 29, 1978, Ex. Public Witness 2/6 another letter of defendant No. l dated November 17, 1978 and Ex. Public Witness /2/7 copy of the letter sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. l. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for defendant No. 2 has contended that the evidence led by the plaintiff is at variance with the pleadings. He has argued that in the plaint the plaintiff has not set up any case that any supplies of oil had been made to defendant No. l through third parties while in the evidence it is being shown that some supplies had been made directly by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 for which a separate account was being maintained and some supplies had been made by the thrid party on behalf of the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 for which separate account had been maintained. So, he has argued that evidence which had been led being at variance with the pleadings should not be taken note of. There is no merit in this contention. The correspondence which has been exchanged between the parties which is not in dispute also made it clear that the plaintiff was maintaining three separate accounts of defendant No. 1 and it was mentioned in the said correspondence the amount due to the plaintiff from defendant No. l in the separate three accounts. Defendant No. 1 in its reply had admitted the claim in respect of two accounts i. e. pertaining to the supplies of the oil made to defendant No. 1 directly by the plaintiff and also the supplies made to defendant No. 1 through third parties by the plaintiff but had disputed only the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the third account which was Hundi Account. The plaintiff is not pressing its claim in respect of the Hundi Account. After all, if any, supplies had been made to defendant No; 1 on behalf of the plaintiff, it is to be deemed that the supplies had been made by the plaintiff. So, it cannot be said that any evidence in variance with the pleadings has been led by the plaintiff. After all, if any, supplies had been made to defendant No; 1 on behalf of the plaintiff, it is to be deemed that the supplies had been made by the plaintiff. So, it cannot be said that any evidence in variance with the pleadings has been led by the plaintiff. , ( 12 ) IT has been then urged by learned counsel for defendant No. 2 that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to corroborate the entries existing in the account books and on mere entries existing in the account books no liability could be fastened on defendant No. 1. It is true that legally liability cannot be imposed on the opposite party on mere proof of existence of entries in the account books of the plaintiff. The law requires corroborative proof with regard to the veracity of such entries but in the present case if we keep in view the pleadings of the parties it become evident that by inference the defendant No. 1 had not disputed the factum of supply of the oil and the balance due to the plaintiff with regard to the price of the supplies of the oil. In case there has been any specific dispute raised with regard to particular item being not supplied the plaintiff would have been then legally bound to prove the said item. ( 13 ) AT any rate, in the present case the correspondence exchanged between the parties clearly show that defendant No. 1 had admitted the amount due in respect of the two accounts and had disputed the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the Hundi Account only. Under Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act, if a promise is made in writing and signed by the person to be chargedtherewith to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits, the said contract is not void even though the said contract is without consideration. From this contract which came about between the. parties through exchange of correspondence the liability has been admitted by defendant No. 1 with regard to the claim made by the plaintiff. Even if the said contract is without consideration, the said contract is enforceable even if the original liability has become time barred. From this contract which came about between the. parties through exchange of correspondence the liability has been admitted by defendant No. 1 with regard to the claim made by the plaintiff. Even if the said contract is without consideration, the said contract is enforceable even if the original liability has become time barred. The suit has been brought within three years of the coming into existence of this contract. So, it is not barred by limitation. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for defendant No. 2 has contended that the contents of the correspondence exchanged do not show any outright admission of liability on the part of defendant No. 1 with regard to the claim of the plaintiff. . So, it cannot be said that there is any admission of any liability. There is no merit in this contention. Ex. P1/1 is the letter of defendant No. 1 dated July 17, 1978, in which it was mentioned that the records of defendant No. 1 show the plaintiff as creditor of defendant No. l being an oil supplier and required the plaintiff to file its claim alongwith necessary proof to enable defendant No. l to make the payment after verification of the same and it was mentioned that defendant No. 1 proposes to pay to all creditors the principal amount in full and final settlement in a phased manner. Ex. Public Witness 2/5 is the letter written by the plaintiff in which the plaintiff put up three claims. The oil supplied through third party on behalf of the plaintiff and amount due being Rs. 1,05,000. 00 and oil supplied directly by the plaintiff and amount due being Rs. 20,968/62p and amount due under Hundi come to the tune ofrs. 322/70p. Ex. Public Witness 2/6 is the letter sent by the defendant No. 1 in response to the said three claims of the plaintiff. In this only claim with regard to Hundi Account had not been accepted by defendant No. 1. The other two claims have not been denied and so the inference is that those two claims have been accepted by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 only wanted that statement of account duly certified by chartered accountant be furnished. Ex. Public Witness 2/7 is the copy of the letter from the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. A duly certified statement of account was sent with it and there. Defendant No. 1 only wanted that statement of account duly certified by chartered accountant be furnished. Ex. Public Witness 2/7 is the copy of the letter from the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. A duly certified statement of account was sent with it and there. was no further letter by defendant No. 1 controverting the claims of the plaintiff. So, perusal of the correspondence clearly indicates that there is admission of defendant No. 1 with regard to the two claims of the plaintiff which come to the tune ofrs. l,25,968/62p. It is significant to mention that the plaintiff while sending its claim had clearly mentioned that these amounts are also shown due in the account books of defendant No. 1. This fact was not controverted by defendant No. 1 in letter Ex. Public Witness 2/6. So, I hold that a sum of Rs. 1,25,968/62pis due from defendant No. l to the plaintiff and claim of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. These two issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff accordingly. ISSUE N0. 4 ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY there has been no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for payment of any interest. There is no evidence led by the plaintiff to show that there has been any practice in the market for levying interest on outstanding amounts. No specific instances have been even mentioned by Public Witness 2 in its testimony showing that in any specific cases as a practice in the market interest has been charged. Admittedly no notice under the Interest Act has been served by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is, thus, not entitled to charge any interest for the period prior to the filing of the suit. Issue is decided in favour of the defendant. ADDITIONAL ISSUE ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for defendant N6. 2 has referred to Section 6 of the Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984, which lays down that any liability other than the liability specified under sub-section (2), of the company in relation to the Ganesh Flour Mills in respect of any period prior to the appointed day shall be the liability of the company and shall be enforeable against it and not against the Central Government or, where the Ganesh Flour Mills vest in a Government company, against the Government company. Sub-section (2) is not applicable admittedly to the facts of the present case. "company" has been defined to mean "the Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited, Delhi" i. e. defendant No. l. The Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited admittedly has been acquired by the Central Government and has been vested in Government Company-defendant No. 2. So, any liability of defendant No. 1 pertaining to the Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited is not enforceable either against the Central Government or against the Government Company in which the Ganesh Flour Mills had vested. Hence, any amount found due in favour of the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 is not to be recovered from defendant No. 2 and thus, suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 2. Issue is decided accordingly in favour of defendant No. 2. RELIEF ( 17 ) THE learned counsel for defendant No;"2 has argued that although he no longer represents defendant No. 1 but to assistthe court on legal question he urges that in view of the appointment of Commissioner of Payments, the plaintiff can get his amount only from the Commissioner of Payments and there are no other assets of defendant No. 1 from which the plaintiff can recover his due amounts. It is not necessary for this court to go into the question whether the plaintiff should seek his remedy before the Commissioner of Payments or not. Section 4 (6) clearly applies to the case which makes it clear that the pending suit is not to abate or discotinue and the same can be prosecuted. In this view of the matter, the suit is to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. l,25,968/62pand against defendant No. l. I, hence, decree the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,25,968/62 Public Witness ith proportionate costs in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1 and grant pendente lite interest and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Suit is dismissed against defendant No. 2.