* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 18^th February 2025 Pronounced on: 04^th April 2025 + CS(COMM) 754/2022, I.A. 17665/2022 & I.A. 2378/2024 SEITZ GMBH .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Shivambika Sinha, Advocate with Ms. Nimita Kaul, Advocate.

versus SIMRAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD .....Defendant Through: Mr. Varun Garg, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

I.A. 2378/2024 (Application under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking to exclude the period from 13^th March 2018 to 26^th November 2019, basis Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in computing the period of limitation applicable to filing of the suit.

2. The suit was filed seeking inter alia recovery of Rs. 2,66,18,235/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty-Six Lakhs Two Hundred Thirty-Five rupees) along with interest. Initially, an application had been moved being I.A.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed I.A. 2378/2024 in CS(COMM) 754/2022 1 of 23

17665/2022, for condonation of delay in refiling, which was considered by the Court on 21^st November 2023.

3. The Court noted that one of the pleas of the plaintiff was that the period undergone during pendency of the petition, filed prior to the Suit, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), has to be excluded from computing the limitation. Liberty, therefore, had been given to the plaintiff to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Notice was issued in the present application on 31^st January 2024.

4. The brief facts in this regard are as under:

(i) Defendant placed orders for supply of Seitz products from time to time. The supply was made to the defendant in India. Invoices were raised and parties made a running account. The latest invoice raised by the plaintiff against supply of goods was on 21^st December 2016. On 05^th July 2017, a credit-note of EUR. 90256.78/- was issued by the plaintiff, in favor of the defendant. Despite the issuance of credit note, defendant started defaulting in payments under various invoices. Plaintiff issued a demand notice dated 31^st January 2018 in terms of Section 8 of IBC, which was replied to, by the defendant on 12^th February

2018.

(ii) On 13^th March 2018, plaintiff filed an application under Section

9 of the IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), New Delhi. The Section 9 IBC application was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed I.A. 2378/2024 in CS(COMM) 754/2022 2 of 23 dismissed vide order dated 03^rd July 2019, basis, that there were “pre-existing disputes” between the parties. Liberty was given to the plaintiff, by the NCLT, to pursue remedies in law before an appropriate forum. Relevant para of the order dated 03^rd July

2019, passed by the NCLT, reads as under:

(iii) Thereafter, plaintiff filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) under Section 61 of the IBC, being, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 776/2019 The said appeal was dismissed by NCLAT vide order dated 26^th November 2019, on the same grounds as those contained in the order of 03^rd July 2019, passed by the NCLT.

(iv) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 31^st December

2021.

Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff

5. Plaintiff asserts that the period from 13^th March 2018 to 26^th November 2019, i.e. the period spent before the NCLT/NCLAT in proceedings under the IBC, ought to be excluded by virtue of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed I.A. 2378/2024 in CS(COMM) 754/2022 3 of 23

6. It is submitted that proceedings under Section 9 and Section 61 of the IBC are civil proceedings and pertain to the same matter in issue as the captioned suit and relate to the recovery of outstanding dues.

7. The said proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith and were a result of diligent exercise of plaintiff’s rights and remedies.

8. The plaintiff relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Sin