Dismissed

M/S. Mysore Timber Trading Company v. Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U55101MH2003PTC143481

Bombay HC23 Jun 2023APP/24/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a Company Petition for admission of a suit as time-barred. The Bench upheld the lower court's finding that the petition was filed beyond the limitation period, rejecting the argument that an unannexed email by the respondent constituted an admission of liability.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Mysore Timber Trading Company Vs Gstaad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 23-APP-24-2020.doc

¶2

Digitally 1 23-APP-24-2020.doc signed by MULEY MULEY SHUBHAM SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO PRAVINRAO Date: 2023.06.27 17:06:55+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020

¶3

¶4

COMPANY PETITION NO. 22 OF 2016

¶5

M/s. Mysore Timber Trading Co. … Appellant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2020 IN

¶10

COMPANY PETITION NO. 22 OF 2016

¶11

Ms. Laveena Tejwani i/by NDB Law for Appellant.

¶12

Ms. Rishika Harish a/w Munaf Virjee and Akash Agarwal i/by AMR Law for Respondent.

¶13

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, ACJ. AND ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶14

DATED : 23 JUNE 2023.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

The present Appeal impugns an order dated 13 April 2018, by which, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss

1 of 3

Shubham

2 23-APP-24-2020.doc

the captioned Company Petition on the ground that the same was ex facie barred by limitation.

¶21

Ms. Tejwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant at the outset submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside since the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the fact that the Respondent-Company had admitted the liability vide an email dated 6 October 2014. When asked to point out where this so called admission was, learned counsel admitted that the email was not annexed to the Petition. She then tendered a copy of the said email which reads thus:-

¶22

“Hi.

¶23

Please find the below working for your reference :

¶24

Summary
Outstanding as on 31/3/2012	40,25,750
Interest 18%
As on 31/3/2014	7,24,635
Total	47,50,385

”

2 of 3

Shubham

3 23-APP-24-2020.doc

Aside from the fact that this was never part of the Company Petition and hence the impugned order could not be faulted for non consideration thereof. Even assuming the same formed part of the Petition to our mind the said email is not an admission of liability and merely records that the Respondent had acknowledged that there was an amount of Rs.40,25,750/- outstanding as on 31 March 2012. It is not in dispute that the present Petition is filed on 3 June 2015 which is beyond the period of limitation.

¶30

Thus, reference to this email does not aid the contention of the Petitioner.

¶31

On a perusal of the Petition and annexures thereto, we are in full agreement with the view of the learned Company Judge that the Petition was ex facie barred by limitation.

¶32

With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Interim Application filed therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶35

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶36

3 of 3

¶37

Shubham

M/S. Mysore Timber Trading Company v. Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U55101MH2003PTC143481

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Mysore Timber Trading Company v. Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U55101MH2003PTC143481

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Ankush Wable and Ors. Vs the City Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Creative Carve Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pune Metropolitan Region Development and Ors.

Dr.(Mrs) Munawwar Sultana Shastri. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Mysore Timber Trading Company Vs Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U55101MH2003PTC143481

Rameshwar Prasad Sah Vs Bharat Nawab Rajput and Anr.

H. H. Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia and Anr. Vs Sardar Sambhaji Angre and 6 Ors.