$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 04.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on:10.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 10.03.2026 + RFA(COMM) 446/2024 STAR PROPWELL PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rishu Kant Sharma, Mr.

Aryan Jha, Advs.

versus STATE BANK OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Uttam Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the Commercial Court], assails the correctness of judgment and decree dated 13.08.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by learned Commercial Court in CS(COMM) No. 282/2020 whereby the Commercial Court dismissed the Plaintiff‟s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as „Limitation Act‟] and, consequently, dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 58,73,850/- as being barred by limitation.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the Commercial Court was justified in holding that the suit was barred by limitation and in declining the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the Plaintiff?

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, it would be apposite to briefly notice the relevant facts. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Commercial Court.

4. The Plaintiff is a private limited company engaged, inter alia, in real estate development. It was allotted leasehold rights in respect of a parcel of land admeasuring 6995.16 square metres situated at Plot No. 1C, Sector 126, Noida, Uttar Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as the „suit property‟] by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) for a period of 90 years. The allotment was formalised through a registered lease deed dated 18.06.2007.

5. With the objective of constructing an Information Technology Park on the suit property, the Plaintiff approached State Bank of Patiala (which subsequently merged with State Bank of India, the present Defendant) for sanction of a term loan facility to the extent of Rs. 40 crores. After appraisal and processing of the proposal, the loan was sanctioned by the Bank on 26.11.2015. As per the sanction terms, the validity of the sanction was stipulated up to 13.05.2016.

6. Pursuant to the sanction, the Plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 30,91,500/- with the Defendant towards upfront charges and other incidental fees as required under the sanction conditions. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the said amount was deposited in anticipation of timely disbursement of the sanctioned facility.

7. Thereafter, on 04.02.2016, the Plaintiff addressed a communication to the Defendant seeking reduction in the rate of interest and concession in the upfront fee component. The request was considered by the Defendant and, vide communication dated 04.03.2016, certain modifications were accepted. This correspondence is relevant as it indicates that the contractual relationship between the parties remained subsisting and under active consideration during the validity period of the sanction.

8. In furtherance of the loan transaction, and in order to comply with regulatory and contractual requirements, steps were taken for obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from NOIDA. A communication dated 02.06.2016 was addressed in that regard, and the NOC was eventually granted on 29.06.2016. Significantly, these steps were undertaken even after 13.05.2016, the date up to which the original sanction was stated to be valid.

9. Meanwhile, certain disputes arose between the parties concerning disbursement of the sanctioned loan amount. The Plaintiff approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 2507/2017 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Defendant to disburse the sanctioned loan faci