SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2020-6-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on June 05,2020

Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PAWAN KUMAR VS. DHARAMVEER [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-12-166] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWDP AND IWTD VS. UDAY SHIVAKUMAR RAJANNA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA DEVI VS. SURESH KUMAR AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2022-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
MD. NAFIS VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-185] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA ALIAS RITA DEVI. VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV KANT VS. GOVIND SINGH PATHANIA [LAWS(HPH)-2021-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER VS. ISMAILBHAI FAKIRBHAI SHEIKH [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNIKANT BHOGILAL PATEL VS. LH OF DECD BHUDARBHAI HAKKABHAI BHRAMBHATT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-933] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMKUMAR LALARAMJI JAISWAL VS. DATTATRAYA S/O. KRISHNARAO PITALE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
R.SWARNAVEL VS. LOGARANI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2.1.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (for short, "the High Court") in R.S.A. No. 391/2016, whereby the High Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dated 6.1.2016 in C.S. No. 950/2014 allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC"), instituted by the appellant/plaintiff. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 23.7.2016 in R.C.A. No. 61794/2016 had also affirmed the order of rejecting the plaint.
The appellant had filed the stated suit on 23.2.2005 for a decree for rendition of true and correct accounts in respect of the interest/commission charged and deducted by the respondentBank relating to current account No. CCM 20225 of the appellant for the period between 1.4.1997 and 31.12.2000 and also for recovery of the excess amount charged by the respondentBank consequent to rendition of accounts with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deduction including interest pendente lite realization of the amount and future interest.

(3.)The plaint came to be rejected by the trial Court under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation, as it was filed beyond the period of three years prescribed in Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the 1963 Act"), as applicable to the present case, from the date when the right to sue accrued to the appellant in October, 2000. The entire discussion of the trial Court in that regard can be traced to paragraphs 10 and 11, which read thus:
''10. As stated above the plaintiff by way of present suit has sought two reliefs i.e. rendition of account and repayment of excess money. Limitation Act, 1963 does not provide any specific article with regard to time period within which accounts can be sought by party from its bank. As such, Article 113 of Limitation Act came into picture which provides a limitation period of three years for suits for which no limitation period is provided, from the date when right to sue accrues.

11. In the present case in hand, as per averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint, the facility was availed by the plaintiff from the defendants till October 2000. Further as per averments made in the plaint the alleged amount so charged by the defendant from the plaintiff, in excess from agreed amount, was till October, 2000. As such, at best can be said right to sue accrues in favour of the plaintiff in October, 2000. Considering the law as stated in above paragraph, plaintiff could have filed the present suit i.e. for rendition of account and repayment of excess amount till October 2003."

After so observing, the trial Court considered the submission of the appellant that the cause of action had accrued to the appellant only upon rejection of the representation by the respondentBank entailing in refusal or denial of liability, communicated to the appellant vide letters dated 19.9.2002 and 3.6.2003 and after the final legal notice was served upon the respondents on 7.1.2005.

That contention has been rejected by adverting to the decision of the same High Court in C.P. Kapur vs. The Chairman and Ors.; (2013) 198 DLT 56, wherein it is held that exchange of correspondence between the parties cannot extend the limitation period for institution of a suit, once the right to sue had accrued, which in this case had accrued in October, 2000, as has been asserted even in the plaint.

Whereas, the suit was filed in February, 2005 beyond the period of three years from the date on which right to sue accrued to the appellant, as prescribed in Article 113 of the 1963 Act. The view so taken by the trial Court commended to the District Court in first appeal and also the High Court in second appeal, which judgment is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.