2026 Supreme(SC) 915

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Trade Centre – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.10658 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24861 of 2025)
Decided On : 12-08-2026

A recovery suit based on invoices is barred by limitation if filed late; time spent in winding-up proceedings is not excludable under Section 14 of Limitation Act, and Company Court permission cannot extend limitation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - Section 69(2) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Recovery suit - Registration of partnership firm - Limitation - Winding-up proceedings - Exclusion of time.

(B) A suit for recovery of money based on invoices is governed by limitation reckoned from the date of each invoice; mere deduction of payments in the plaint schedule does not convert it into a running account. A reply denying liability and paying only specific admitted invoices does not amount to an acknowledgment of debt or a part payment extending limitation. Time spent in pursuing winding-up proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for a subsequent recovery suit, as the relief sought in the two proceedings is different; the Company Court's order permitting the filing of a suit does not extend limitation. (Paras 13-17)

(C) Registration of a partnership firm is proved by a memorandum issued by the Registrar of Firms, and a certified copy of Form-VIII produced under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be admitted as additional evidence to corroborate the registration. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The respondent, a partnership firm, filed a suit for recovery of money against the appellant based on unpaid invoices. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff's registration as a partnership firm was not proved, making the suit barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The first appellate court reversed, holding that a memorandum of registration and a certified copy of Form-VIII proved registration, and decreed the suit. The defendant appealed, contending that the suit claim was barred by limitation and that registration was not validly proved.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the registration of the plaintiff-firm was sufficiently proved by the memorandum of registration and corroborated by the additional document. However, the suit for recovery was barred by limitation. The suit was based on invoices, not a running account; the last of the relevant invoices was dated 06.03.2007, and the suit was filed on 05.06.2010, after the period of limitation had expired. The time spent in pursuing winding-up proceedings could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act because the relief in such proceedings was different from that in a recovery suit. The Company Court had no power to extend limitation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff partnership firm had proved its registration so as to maintain the suit, and whether the suit for recovery was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for recovery based on invoices is governed by limitation from the date of each invoice. A winding-up petition is not a step toward obtaining the same relief as a money suit, and hence time spent in winding-up proceedings cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. A denial of liability and payment of only specific admitted invoices do not amount to an acknowledgment or part payment extending limitation. The Company Court's relegation of the claimant to a civil remedy does not extend the statutory period of limitation.

Result: Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside to the extent of granting recovery, and the suit stands dismissed for being barred by limitation.