Dismissed

M/S Nikunj Woods Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Krishna Steel Furniture and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2024RFA(COMM)/359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a recovery suit on the ground of limitation, though merits were found in the plaintiff's favour. The Division Bench held the Supreme Court's COVID-era limitation extension did not apply since limitation would have expired after 28.02.2022, and dismissed the appeal as also delayed by 145 days.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Nikunj Woods Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Krishna… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Decision delivered on: 02.09.2024

¶4

- RFA(COMM) 359/2024 & CM Nos.50724-25/2024

¶5

M/S NIKUNJ WOODS PVT LTD .....APPELLANT Through: Mr Anirudh Gupta and Mr Ashish Gupta, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S KRISHNA STEEL FURNITURE AND ANR...RESPONDENTS Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶10

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶11

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

¶12

CM No.50724/2024

¶13

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶14

RFA(COMM) 359/2024 & CM No.50725/2024 [Application filed on

¶15

behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in filing the appeal]

¶16

This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 16.01.2024. The appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,78,094/-, along with interest.

¶17

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that although on merits the trial court had found in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, the suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶18

In the context of limitation, the following facts need to be noticed:

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 23.0 9.2024 15:57:46

¶21

RFA(COMM) 359/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶22

(i) Firstly, it is not in dispute that the suit for recovery was pivoted on the invoice no.427 dated 18.03.2019.

¶23

(ii) Secondly, the last payment against the aforementioned invoice was received by the appellant/plaintiff on 31.10.2019. (iii) Thirdly, the limitation period in the ordinary course would have expired in and about 31.10.2022.

¶24

(iv) Fourthly, the mediation proceedings had been undertaken by the parties between 15.09.2022 and 11.11.2022.

¶25

(v) Lastly, the suit for recovery was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 20.01.2023.

¶26

The learned trial court, after giving the appellant/plaintiff benefit of the time spent in mediation, concluded that the suit for recovery was barred by limitation. 6. Mr Anirudh Gupta, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that the trial court did not take into account the judgement of the Supreme Court, rendered in suo motu writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C)No.3/2020.

¶27

6.1 In this regard, our attention was drawn to the extract of the said judgement.

¶28

7. According to us, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is flawed. As per W.P.(C)No.3/2020, the limitation was extended up until 28.02.2022 with a proviso that notwithstanding actual balance period of limitation remaining [in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022] all persons would have a limitation period of 90 days w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The Supreme Court also clarified that where the actual balance period of

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 23.0 9.2024 15:57:46

¶31

RFA(COMM) 359/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶32

limitation remaining w.e.f. 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period will apply.

¶33

In this case, as noted above, limitation expired in the normal course in and about 31.10.2022 and, therefore, the above submission cannot be accepted on facts. No error has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff concerning limitation.

¶34

We may note that the above-captioned appeal is also delayed by 145 days.

¶35

The appeal is without merits and is, accordingly, closed.

¶36

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶37

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶38

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶39

SEPTEMBER 2, 2024 aj

¶40

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date: 23.0 9.2024 15:57:46

¶43

RFA(COMM) 359/2024 Page 3 of 3

M/S Nikunj Woods Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Krishna Steel Furniture and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Nikunj Woods Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Krishna Steel Furniture and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Brand Connect Vs M/S Pamm Advertisement and Marketing

Raghubir Saran and Sons Vs M/S Shellz India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shriram Epc Ltd. through Authorised Signatory Sh. T.A. Ramachandran Vs M/S Apex Crane Company

M/S Himalayan Ales Private Limited Vs M/S Adaab Hotels Ltd.

Vinay Goyal and Anr. Vs Ajay Gupta

M/S Dev Polyplast Private Limited & Anr. Vs M/S R.N. Polymers

Imran Zia Vs Dinesh Sharma

M/S Naveen Garments Vs M/S Mittal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

Sh. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Vs Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar

Shashank Tiwari & Anr. Vs Rani Sharma & Anr.

Dreamsquare Hospitality LLP Vs Pradeep Sharan & Ors.

Amit Kumar Maheria Vs Rashmi

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Meena Tanwar