Judgment : 1. The plaintiff is an association of pensioners of ABN AMRO Bank. Defendant No.1, who is the only contesting defendant, (defendant) is the successor-in-title in title to ABN AMRO Bank. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of diverse amounts by way of pensionery benefits of its members upon the pension rules as also the assurances of the defendant to pay specified percentage of pensionable salary which has been increased by the defendant from time to time. The plaintiff has challenged the reductions made by the defendant in the percentage of pensionable salary agreed to be paid. This suit is filed for declaration that the reduction is bad in law and in breach of the contract of the defendant, that the defendant be stopped from reducing the pension of the agreed percentage, the challenge to the reduction of the specified percentage and an injunction against acting upon such reduction as also for deposit of specified amount towards the balance of the pension amount payable. 2. The plaintiff has also relied upon the Pension Rules 1975, under the Trust Deed executed by ABN AMRO Bank, the predecessor-in-title of the defendant with the trustees of the pension funds in 1975. The plaintiff has specifically sought to enforce rule 15 of the trust deed in respect of a scheme of insurance with the Life Insurance of India (LIC) or the purchase of an annuity from the LIC for the pensioners. The plaintiff has sought direction for directing the defendant to comply with rule 15 of the pension rules, to deposit specified amounts with the pension trust for purchase of annuities as per the said rule, for deposit of specified amount and for the purchase of annuities under the said rule. 3. The defendant has contended that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. That issue has been raised as a jurisdictional issue in the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff for grant of interim reliefs based upon the aforesaid final reliefs. 4. The defendant also contends that if even a part of the plaintiff’s claim is held to be barred by the law of limitation, the remainder of the plaintiff’s claim would be less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and has accordingly challenged the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. 5. Two issues have been framed by this Court on 21st March, 2014. 1. 5. Two issues have been framed by this Court on 21st March, 2014. 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 6. Issue No.1 which relates to jurisdiction is, therefore, secondary. Issue No.2 which relates to the bar of limitation is, therefore, primary and is tried upon the arguments of both the parties. 7. It is conceded by the defendant that the main issue is the jurisdictional issue of limitation. Of course, if a part of the claim of the plaintiffs is held not barred and is seen to be of lesser than this Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit would be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court for adjudication of that part of the plaintiff’s claim. Consequently both Counsel have argued upon the question of limitation. 8. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaint itself shows that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Both Counsel have relied upon only the plaint including the annexures therein in support of their respective contentions with regard to the aspect of limitation. Issue of Limitation: The suit is in two parts. 1. Relating to the extent of percentage of pension payable on the pensionable salary of the pensioners. And 2. The enforcement of rule 15 of the pension rules. 1. Re-percentage of pension payable: 9. The predecessor-in-title of defendant and consequently defendant No.1 was liable to pay pension @ 1.67% of the pensionable salary of the pensioner. 10. Under a deed of memorandum of settlement dated 11th November, 1997 between the defendant's predecessor-in-title and their workmen, Exhibit-G to the plaint the defendant's predecessor-in-title agreed to increase the pension amount to 5% of such salary. 11. Thereafter under the further letter of the predecessor-in-title of the defendant dated 8th August 2000, Exhibit-H to the plaint the defendant agreed to a guaranteed increase of 7% of pension with effect from 1st August, 2000. 12. Later the predecessor-in-title of the defendant agreed to a guaranteed increase of 10% in the pension under its letter dated 31st May, 2001 Exhibit-J to the plaint. 13. It is this pension amount that the plaintiff seeks to enforce and for which it has sued for declaration, injunction as also directions as aforesaid. 12. Later the predecessor-in-title of the defendant agreed to a guaranteed increase of 10% in the pension under its letter dated 31st May, 2001 Exhibit-J to the plaint. 13. It is this pension amount that the plaintiff seeks to enforce and for which it has sued for declaration, injunction as also directions as aforesaid. This pension amount is stated to have been paid until 2009 when the defendant revised the rate of annual increment in pension to 2% with effect from 1st January, 2010 as stated in its letter dated 27th October, 2009, Exhibit-V to the plaint. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to revert after which it would incorporate such increase in the Pension Trust Deed and funds pension liabilities by the end of December of 2009. 14. Consequent upon further negotiations, the defendant agreed to revise the annual increment percentage of 10% and to cap it at 5% or the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which were effective from 1st January 2011. It reserved the right of management to revise the increment at its discretion and stated that the 5% increment would strike a balance between appropriate sustainable costs and the solution. This was informed to the plaintiff under the defendant's letter dated 19th April, 2010 which is challenged in the suit. 15. The challenge is made within 2 years of the alteration of the commitment made by defendant in the payment to the extent of the increment in pension. 16. The suit in that behalf is clearly not barred by the law of limitation, it being for recovery as well as for declaration within 3 years of the challenge to reduction in the pension increment amount. “2. Re-Annuity of LIC: 17. Under rule 15 of the Persian Rules (clause 15 of the Trust Deed) the defendant was obliged to enter into a scheme of insurance with LIC or purchase an annuity from LIC for payment to the pensioners. Rule 1 Clause 15 runs thus: “15. The Trustees shall for the purpose of providing the pensions for the members pursuant to the Rules, (i) enter into a scheme of insurance with the Life Insurance Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 (31 of 1956); or (ii) accumulate the contributions in respect of each member and purchase an annuity from the said Life Insurance Corporation of India at the time of retirement.” 18. The trust deed was executed on 26th December, 1975. The rules came into effect from 1975. The plaintiff had knowledge of the rules since then. The obligation of the trustees under the rules were to be performed at the time of retirement of each employee with regard to the pension payable to him/her. 19. If the defendant fails to honour that obligation and if the plaintiff or any of its members desires to enforce obligation, it would require to be enforced within 3 years from the date of retirement of such employee or from the date of the coming into force of the rules under the trust deed of 1975 for those employees who had retired by then. 20. The plaintiff for the first time demanded the funding of pension with the LIC from the defendant under its letter dated 8th June, 2004, Exhibit-L to the plaint. The defendant by its letter dated 16th June, 2004, Exhibit-M to the plaint thanked the plaintiff for its suggestion and stated that the pension payments were governed through a well templated process. 21. The plaintiff again by its letter dated 8th October 2004 to the defendant, Exhibit-N to the plaint sought to enforce the obligatory rule with regard to the pension fund. It cited rule 15 in the letter. The defendant by its letter dated 23rd November, 2004 Exhibit-O to the plaint again stated that the pension fund was managed through a well established process and the defendant was not contemplating any changes in the current process. 22. The defendant contends that by both its letters Exhibit-M & Exhibit-O it refused the plaintiff's demand with regard to the funding of pension with LIC and gave the plaintiff the cause of action to sue upon rule 15 under which such a pension fund was to be created with LIC. The plaintiff contends that both these letters do not show refusal, rejection or denial of the obligation of the defendant by the defendant. 23. The plaintiff by a further letter dated 3rd May, 2005 Exhibit-P to the plaint again demanded the funding of pension with LIC under the rules. The plaintiff contends that both these letters do not show refusal, rejection or denial of the obligation of the defendant by the defendant. 23. The plaintiff by a further letter dated 3rd May, 2005 Exhibit-P to the plaint again demanded the funding of pension with LIC under the rules. The defendant by its letter dated 14th May, 2005 Exhibit-Q to the plaint refuted the plaintiff's claim stating that the additional amount was only payable benevolently and not under the pension scheme and hence the question of LIC annuity for payment of such additional payment did not arise. The defendant has at least under this letter specifically denied the plaintiff's claim to the funding of pension. 24. The plaintiff by its letter dated 23rd December, 2005 Exhibit-R to the plaint reiterated its claim and gave an ultimatum to the defendant that if it did not hear from the defendant within a reasonable period it would have to take suitable measures to realize the rightful interest of the pensioners according to the pension fund rules. 25. The plaintiff at all times relied upon the rules. The plaintiff at all times had knowledge of the rules. The plaintiff specifically claimed obligation under the rules. The plaintiff also gave the ultimatum to act under the rules. The plaintiff had to sue for enforcement of the rules at least within 3 years therefrom for recovery of the amount under the pension scheme with LIC or an annuity in that behalf. The cause of action would begun to run at least from the date of the defendant's specific refusal being 14th May, 2005. The plaintiff's notice would require the plaintiff to take action within a reasonable time of the notice as threatened by itself. 26. There has been an absolute and total lull in the action contemplated and threatened by the plaintiff after 2005. In the later correspondence between the parties pursuant to negotiations between them only the reduction in the annual increment in pension was adverted to and claimed by the plaintiff. 27. Even the suit filed in 2012 did not claim the enforcement of rule 15. That has been claimed by way of later amendments to the plaint made on 30th October, 2013. 28. 27. Even the suit filed in 2012 did not claim the enforcement of rule 15. That has been claimed by way of later amendments to the plaint made on 30th October, 2013. 28. The defendant's contention that the suit is barred by the law of limitation with regard to the claim under clause 15 of the trust deed being rule 15 of the pension rules in respect of the declaration sought as also the recovery of the amounts and the order of direction for deposit of the amount is clearly shown from the aforesaid dates. The scheme for declaration as also recovery of the amount and the deposit had to be made within 3 years of the accrual of the cause of action being the refusal/denial of the defendant in that behalf. That denial is seen in the defendant's letter dated 14th May, 2005. 29. The Court's attention is drawn to the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Surjit Kaur & Anr (2007) 15 SCC 627. It is held that right to receive pension should be asserted within the period of limitation. If the right is established, the right to receive pension would be a continuing one. If the right is not established within the period of limitation the suit is barred by the law of limitation. 30. The Court's attention is also drawn to the case of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & Ors. 2013(3) Bom. C.R. 669 in which it has been inter alia held that the objection to jurisdiction can be taken in respect of a part of the cause of action which is set up in this suit. If the jurisdiction of the Court is sustained in part that part of the cause of action would fall outside the scope of adjudication. The object of the legislature was to preclude plaintiff from pursuing an interim application though the claim fell outside the jurisdiction. That rationale would be relevant both to a situation where the entirety of the claim lies outside the jurisdiction of the Court and the situation where a part of the cause of action lies outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence it is held that even if the Court did not have jurisdiction for a part of the cause of action raised in the suit, Section 9A of the CPC would apply. 31. Hence it is held that even if the Court did not have jurisdiction for a part of the cause of action raised in the suit, Section 9A of the CPC would apply. 31. Consequently the suit with regard to the claim under rule 15 of the Pension Rules under Clause 15 of the Trust Deed is barred by the law of limitation. 32. Hence the issue of limitation required to be framed and tried under Section 9A is answered as follows: 33. The plaintiff's suit with regard to the declarations, the direction for payment, recovery and/or deposit and the injunction with regard to the increment in the bonus amount is within time. The plaintiff's claim with regard to the directions, in respect of rule 15 and the deposit of amounts or the recovery of amounts as per rule 15 of the pension rules is barred by the law of limitation. 34. The suit as framed upon amendments to the plaint show recovery of more than Rs.1 Crore. Hence it does not require to be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court. 35. The suit shall proceed with regard to the claim under prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e-2), (j) & (k). 36. The notice of motion is adjourned to 17th April, 2014.