Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1398

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
Assam State Electricity Board And Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition (C) Nos. 786-787 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8442-8443 of 2016
with
M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries – Appellant
Versus
The Assam State Electricity Board – Respondent
Review Petition (C) No. 789 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8450 Of 2016
with
M/s Trusses and Towers (P) Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
Assam State Electricity Board And Anr. – Respondents
Review Petition (C) No. 788 of 2019 In Civil Appeal Nos. 8445 of 2016
Decided on : 18-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Abhishek Manu Sighvi, Ajit Kumar Sinha, B.S. Patil, Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka, Sarvshree, Justine George, Srishti Agarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Sneha Kalita, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Court by mandate of law, is obliged to dismiss suit which is filed beyond limitation even though no pleading or arguments are raised to that effect.
(2) Under guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided.

Headnote:
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 6 – Bar of limitation – In event, a suit is instituted after prescribed period, it shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence – Court by mandate of law, is obliged to dismiss suit which is filed beyond limitation even though no pleading or arguments are raised to that effect – Plaint shall show ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Scope and ambit – Scope of review is limited – Under guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. (Para 21)
(C) Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 – Sections 3 and 4 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 19 – Delay in payment of bills – Claim for interest – There is no pleading as to exception of limitation by running any fresh period of limitation as per Section 19 – There being no specific pleading by plaintiffs claiming any start of fresh period of limitation, there was no occasion for defendants to raise any reply in reference to Section 19 – Petitioner in plaint has clearly not pleaded for benefit of Section 19 nor has brought necessary facts to enable Court to consider claim under Section 19 – Petitioner is not entitled for benefit of Section 19 of Limitation Act – There is no error in judgment of Court holding that suit of plaintiff was barred by time. (Paras 13, 14 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present review petitions have been filed against common judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8442-8443 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.8450 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.8445 of 2016, by which all the Civil Appeals were dismissed, sought to be reviewed by these applications. All the review petitions filed have raised different grounds, which need to be considered separately.
Findings of Court:
Grounds on which the petitioner prayed liberty to file review was not proved in the review petition. The High Court in the review judgment did not hold in favour of the petitioner that he was entitled for the benefit of Act, 1993 rather the High Court accepted submission of the petitioner that plaintiffs are not debarred from claiming cost under Section 34 CPC, Section 61 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 or Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 or in equity only on ground of principal amount. The High Court granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 has been filed against review judgment but obviously the appeal is not against the 9% interest granted to the petitioner.
Result : Review Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These review petitions have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8442-8443 of 2016, Civil Appeal No.8450 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No.8445 of 2016, by which all the Civil Appeals were dismissed, sought to be reviewed by these applications. All the review petitions filed have raised different grounds, which need to be considered separately.

Review Petition (C) Nos. 786-787 of 2019

2. To consider the grounds raised in the review petition, few facts need to be noticed.

2.1 The Assam State Electricity Board, the respondent has issued two supply orders to the petitioner dated 31.03.1992 and 13.05.1992 for supply of aluminium electrical conductors. Petitioner completed supply in pursuance of the above supply orders beginning from June, 1992 till 04.10.1993. The President of India to provide for and regulate payment of interest on delayed payment to small scale industries issued an Ordinance on 23.09.1992 namely “The interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Ordinance”, which subsequently became the Act namely “The interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1993”)” w.e.f. 23.09.1992.

2.2 A Writ Petition (C) No. 1351 of 1993 was filed by Assam Conductors Manufacturers Association on behalf of its five members, which included M/s. Shanti Conductors Private Limited also for realisation of its dues and for seeking payment. An interim order was passed by the Guwahati High Court on 21.07.1993, in which the High Court observed that respondents may settle with the outstanding bills of the petitioners. The respondent paid an amount of approx. Rs.2.15 Crores in instalments to the petitioner and the last instalment of payment being made on 05.03.1994. A Money Suit No.21 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1 at Guwahati on 10.01.1997 for a decree of Rs.53,68,492.56 towards the interest only on the payment of the principal amount, which had already been received by the petitioner.

2.3 On 28.08.1997, Writ Petition (C) No.1351 of 1993 was dismissed observing that writ petitioner may go to the Civil Court for realisation of its dues.

2.4 The trial court on 02.02.2000 decreed the money suit of the petitioner for Rs.51,60,507.42 with future interest @ 23.75% on a monthly compounding basis. RFA No.66 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the trial court. The Division Bench made a reference to the Full Bench for answering three points as raised by the counsel for the appellant. Three-Judge Bench answered the reference on 05.03.2002. The respondent filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24577 of 2002, which was subsequently converted in Civil Appeal No.2351 of 2003. This Court on 10.07.2012 dismissed the Civil Appeal No.2351 of 2003 [M/s. Assam State Electricity Board Vs. M/s. Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd.] alongwith another Civil Appeal No.2348 of 2003 [M/s. Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board]. After dismissal of the above Civil Appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the RFA No.66 of 2000 filed by the respondents and dismissed the suit of the petitioner.

2.5 Against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.11.2012, Civil appeal Nos.8442-8443 of 2016 was filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd, the petitioner in the appeal. Two judgments were delivered by two Hon’ble Judges with two divergent opinion, which judgment is reported in (2016) 16 SCC Page 13. The matter was referred to Three Judge Bench, which heard all the appeals and vide its judgment dated 23.01.2019 dismissed the appeals.

3. In the suit filed by the petitioners, one of the questions, which was framed was “Whether the suit filed by the appellants is barred by limitation?” In par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1398

Cases Referred (4)