Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Kalyan Singh Bachhil – Appellant
Versus
Utility Powertech Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to commercial court judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of claims and counterclaims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding limitation and certification. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's analysis on limitation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. precedent on limitation and correspondence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal and final order. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
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
Limitation periods cannot be extended by mere correspondence; cause of action arises once payments are due, independent of certifications or reminders.
The main legal point established is that the existence of an arbitration agreement does not preclude a party from filing a suit, and the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to determine the tim....
Unilateral invoice without acknowledgment does not extend limitation for contract payment claims; warranty period does not postpone cause of action.
Failure to raise claims for escalation in a timely manner and acceptance of payments in full and final settlement preclude further claims.
A cause of action based on an approved bill resets limitation; rejection of plaint under Rule 11 is unwarranted where factual disputes exist.
Article 113 of the Limitation Act reads as Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period of limitation is three years and the time begins to run when th....
The acknowledgment of debt in communications does not extend the limitation period for filing a suit unless it resets the cause of action according to the Limitation Act.
An acknowledgment of debt resets the limitation period, and valid documentation from the plaintiff established defendants' liability despite claims of time-barred debt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
