Limitation periods for debt recovery start upon work completion. Acknowledgment of liability in writing saves only the specifically admitted amount from being time-barred. Mere persistent reminders without unequivocal acceptance of the entire balance do not extend the statutory period for the remainder of the claim.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34 and 37 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 18 and Article 18 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order XII Rule 6 - Limitation - Recovery of money - Rejection of claim - Admission of liability - The limitation period for a claim regarding completed work where no specific payment date is fixed commences from the date of completion - Mere persistent reminders or one-sided correspondence cannot extend the period of limitation - Acknowledgment of liability in writing applies only to the specific amount admitted and does not revive the limitation period for the entire outstanding claim amount. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 19)

(B) Appeals - Scope of judicial review - An appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of an arbitral tribunal and a lower court unless there is manifest perversity, illegality, or gross error of law - While pleas of limitation often involve mixed questions of law and fact, where essential facts regarding the expiry of limitation are admitted by the claimant, the claim may be rejected at the threshold without necessitating further evidence. (Paras 17, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought recovery of an outstanding amount allegedly due for work completed, challenging an interim award that held a significant portion of its claim to be time-barred. The arbitral tribunal had granted a partial recovery based on an unequivocal written acknowledgement of that specific sum by the respondent while dismissing the remainder of the claim as barred by the statutory period of limitation. The lower court upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the work was completed on a specific date, and the claim was filed well beyond the three-year statutory period. It found that the tribunal correctly differentiated between a categorical admission of a specific sum and general demands for payment which did not constitute an acknowledgment of liability for the entire claim. The appellate court affirmed that the tribunal's findings were legally sound and based on the facts admitted by the claimant.

Issues: The main issues were whether a claim for payment for completed work is barred if initiated after three years from the date of completion, whether repeated reminders extend the limitation period, and under what circumstances a plea of limitation can be decided during preliminary stages of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts regarding the date of the final bill and completion of work are admitted by the claimant, the issue of limitation can be decided without extensive evidence. Under the law of limitation, an acknowledgment must be unequivocal and specific; admitting to a portion of a debt does not imply acknowledgment of the entire claim amount, and voluntary correspondence by the claimant does not restart the limitation period.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. condonation of delay in legal filings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. assessment of limitation period for work completion claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments concerning limitation and mixed questions of fact/law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court affirmation of limitation in arbitration claims. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. applicability of order vii rule 11 when facts are unambiguous. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. dismissal of appeal for lack of merit. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM APPL No. 28130/2026 (condonation of delay in refiling)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 146 days in re filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL No. 28131/2026 (condonation of delay in filing)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The application stands disposed of.

FAO (COMM) 122/2026 and CM APPL. 28128/2026(Stay)

5. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (learned District Judge) in OMP (COMM) No.25/2020 whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act challenging the interim award (award) dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Arbitrator whereby the learned Arbitrator has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by stating in paragraph no.9 onwards as under:-

“9. For the purpose of deciding the application under O.VII R.11 CPC, the Tribunal has to confine itself only to the Statement of Claim and the averments made therein along with the annexed documents. From the respective stands taken by the parties, it would be seen that there is no dispute with the proposition that the limitation period would be 3 years from the date when the work is completed in terms of Article 18 of Limitation Act; the right to get payment begins upon completion of work. Therefore, the crucial date to decide as to when the period of limitation would start to run, would be the date when as per the claimant, the work was completed

10. Ld. counsel for the respondent referred to Para 25 of the Statement of Claim where the claimant averred that after completion of the work on 20.08.2015, various invoices were raised. The details of the invoices have been given in Para No.25 of the Statement of Claim and the last one is 20th August, 2015. These final invoices were sent vide email dated 22.08.2015. There is nothing in the Statement of Claim to show that any work was done subsequently to infer that the period of limitation would start from any such subsequent date. Therefore, even considering 22.08.2015 to be the starting point of limitation period, the claim could have been raised till 21.08.2018 Thus, the present claim would be certainly barred by limitation.

11. The claimant has relied upon various communications between the parties to urge that limitation period got extended as there was no denial of deb payable by the respondent and in fact, there had been admissions/ acknowledgment made by the respondent to the extent of Rs.16,75,128/-. It is contended that such admission of debt would amount to valid acknowledgement within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Ac to extend the period of limitation and start it afresh.

12. However, this Tribunal does not find itself in agreement with the said contention of the claimant. For the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, there has to an unequivocal and express acknowledgement of liability before expiration of limitation period, which should be in writing and signed by the respondent. It is also trite that this acknowledgement may omit to specify the exact nature of property or right or refusal to pay or to perform.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIV. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.M/s Quality Engineers And Contractors - AppellantVersusM/s Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Private Ltd - RespondentFAO (COMM) 122 of 2026Decided On : 26-05-2026

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
M/s Quality Engineers And Contractors - Appellant
Versus
M/s Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Private Ltd - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 122 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026