CASE TITLE – M/S VOIR INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. v. M/S POLYBLENDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
CASE NUMBER – C.R.P. 69/2022 & CM APPL. 22206/2022
DATED ON – 20.05.2024
QUORUM – Justice Dharmesh Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE
This is a revision petition filed in terms of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19081 by the petitioner, who is the defendant in the main suit bearing No. 379/20182 instituted by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, assailing the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff is a Private Limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Plastic Dana of different colours, polypropylene etc., and supplying the same to its customers. The petitioner/defendant had business dealings with respondent/ plaintiff under which the petitioner purchased the materials of plastic dana of different colours/reinforced ABS etc. from time to time on a credit basis and made payments to the invoices raised. Due to the aforesaid business transactions, there arose a debit balance of Rs.10,25,916/-, which became payable by the petitioner/defendant along with interest @ 18% per annum as per the terms of the agreement between the two parties. The said amount was not paid despite a legal notice dated 16.01.2018, which was sent on 18.01.2018, and thus, a suit for recovery was filed on 03.04.2018 by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant before the learned Trial Court. The Learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, comprehensively dealt with the expression „cause of action‟. Further, insofar as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it was observed that as per the Memorandum of Association (MoA), the registered office of the plaintiff i.e. M/S Polyblends India Pvt. Ltd. is situated in Delhi. However, as per the invoices, the address of the plaintiff is shown in Gurgaon, Haryana and that of the defendant in Greater Noida. Referring to Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and because a plaint is to be taken at its face value, the learned Trial Court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the effect of an acknowledgement in writing on the limitation period for a lawsuit or application.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
The petitioner in its written statement alleged that the last bill was raised on 31.01.2014 and thereafter, no goods were ever purchased by the petitioner from the respondent for the sole reason that the respondent started supplying defective and sub-standard quality of goods and there has been no dealing after 31.01.2014. It was further averred that in the suit filed before the learned Trial Court, the period of limitation of three years started from 02.03.2014, which would have ended on 01.03.2017 and the respondent had filed the suit on 03.04.2018, which is barred under Article 15 of the schedule under the Limitation Act, 1963.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the last part payment of Rs. 25,000/- was received by them from the petitioner on 12.03.2015 and thereafter, no payment was made and, in this regard, a reply was also filed by the respondent/plaintiff. They further referred to the ledger account starting from 1st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016, and averred that the three cheques bearing No. 057043, 057044 and 057045 for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each issued by the petitioner, were dishonoured by the Bank with the remark “Cheq Return‟, and stated that in previous precedents it was held that payment by cheque, which is dishonoured, would amount to an acknowledgement of debt and liability.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi stated that the present revision petition is bereft of any merits. The last of the bill/invoice by which the delivery of goods was made to the petitioner/defendant, was on 31.01.2014. The plea that the limitation period started running from the due date i.e. 02.03.2014 and would have expired after 3 years, was said to be misconceived since, it was brought on the record that a payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made by the petitioner/defendant on 12.03.2015 towards the running account between the parties as prima facie brought out on appreciating the entries in the ledger of the respondent/plaintiff, which would have formed a part of the plaint. The Hon’ble High Court further stated, that the three cheques dated 07.05.2015 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- each had been issued by the petitioner/defendant towards part payment of the bills/invoices, which on their presentation were dishonoured. And that being the case, the payment made by the petitioner/defendant through cheques, which got dishonoured, would be tantamount to an acknowledgment of debt and liability and the period of limitation would stand extended by virtue of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. And held that in view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition should be dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which should be deposited with the Delhi High Legal Services Committee, New Delhi.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
