Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The seminal issue that emanates for consideration in this Letter Patent Appeal is as to whether the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 can be held entitled to the benefit of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, when admittedly it is not “Government” although it is statutory authority and “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts given rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,26,70,969/- along with 12% interest per annum up to the filing of the suit. The appellant/defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.

3. The respondent/plaintiff contested the application by claiming that it was a Government Company, wherein the Central Government had 100% shares and therefore, it was entitled to the extended period of limitation, as envisaged under Article 112 of the Limitation Act.

4. The learned Single Judge after taking assistance of Article 12 of the Constitution held the respondent to be a “State” and proceeded to apply Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held the suit to be within time.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff is a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, which essentially means that not less than 51% of the paid share capital is held by the Central Government. It is further not in dispute that the respondent after having registered under the Companies Act is no longer as a part and parcel of the Department of Telecommunication of the Union of India and is a distinct and separate legal entity.

6. Article 112 of the Limitation Act provides as under:-

7. Undoubtedly, respondent Company is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, but the question is whether the words “Central Government” and “State Government” used in Article 112 of the Limitation Act should also be read to include ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

8. Identical issue was considered by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.) in OMP No. 34 of 2015 in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2014, titled Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Best Gas Service and others, decided on 3.3.2015, wherein after referring to various provisions of the law and relying upon the judgment rendered by a Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta, 2007 (4) PLR 414, it was held that BSNL was not entitled to the benefit of Article 112 of the Limitation Act.

9. Notably, the issue in hand is no longer resintegra, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta (2016) 1 SCC 363, wherein the judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Pawan Kumar Gupta case (supra) itself had been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has now held that though BSNL is a statutory authority, it is not Synonymous with the Central Government, even though share capital of the company owned in the name of the President is 100% and is undoubtedly under the control of the Central Government, as it is financed and its administration is under the absolute control of the Central Government. It has further