Limitation periods cannot be extended by mere correspondence; cause of action arises once payments are due, independent of certifications or reminders.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 along with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugning a judgement dated 20.06.2020 (hereafter `the impugned judgement') passed by the learned Commercial Court in CS (COMM.) No.04/2019 captioned Kalyan Singh Bachhil v. M/s Utility Powertech Limited, wherein the learned Commercial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the aforementioned suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.81,11,473/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. The respondent/defendant had also filed the counter-claim for a sum of Rs.18,92,504/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of realisation. The claim/counterclaim, made by the parties were in connection with various work orders, placed on the appellant/plaintiff in the years 2004 and 2005. These work orders were for the erection of complete equipment for the implementation of High Voltage Distribution Systems (HVDS) and testing and commissioning of the said system in various localities within the distribution area of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) in Delhi.

3. The learned Commercial Court did not accept the appellant's/plaintiff's claim and rejected the suit as being barred by limitation as well as on merits. The counter claim made by the respondent/defendant for recovery of of Rs.18,92,504/- was also rejected on the ground of limitation.

4. The appellant is the proprietor of Bachhil and Sons, a concern involved in the business of erecting, testing and commencement of HVDS and LTMP systems services. The respondent is a joint venture of Reliance Infrastructure Limited (REL) and National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC).

5. The appellant claims that it had been raising Running Account Bills and the respondent made on account payments to the appellant. However, the aggregate payments made were less than the aggregate invoiced amount to the extent of Rs.81,11,473. The appellant's/plaintiff's claim relates to the recovery of the amounts that were invoiced in respect of work done in various locations. The details of the various bills, as set out in the plaint, indicates that most of the bills pertained to the year 2005 and 2006, however, there appears to be one bill dated 15.03.2007/15.02.2008.

6. The appellant/plaintiff claims that the total bills raised amounted to Rs.1,42,38,326/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, the respondent paid an amount of Rs.61,26,853/- and the balance amount of Rs.81,11,473/- remained outstanding and payable. The appellant/plaintiff claims that it had sent several letters demanding that the outstanding payment be made. The appellant/plaintiff had also escalated his grievance to the Government of India, Ministry of Power and claims that the Government of India had also directed the respondent, by its letters dated 26.08.2009 and 22.04.2010, to address the appellant's/plaintiff's grievance; however, the respondent/defendant had failed to do so.

7. Paragraph 6 of the plaint is relevant and set out below:

"6. That in this regard plaintiff has been contacting the defendant as well as its other constituents and concerned authorities orally as well as in writing such as through letters dated 18.05.2007, 15.02.2008, 25.02.2008, 13.03.2008, 14.03.2008, 27.03.2008, 25.04.2008, 08.09.200, 22.10.2008, 21.11.2008, 20.12.2008, 1.06.2009, 27.07.2009, 20.10.2009 and 02.12.2009 for making the paymen