C A V Order

1. Both the petitions have been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2019, passed in Civil Suit No.2-B/2018, passed by the learned Commercial Court at Naya Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.).

2. Respondent No.1 has instituted a civil suit against the petitioners in both the cases, which is registered as Civil Suit No.2-B/2018 making a claim of amount of Rs.2,06,75,810.89 and interest Rs.2,71,76,339.00 along with other reliefs.

3. The petitioners/defendant No.1 and 2 filed a separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. that no cause of action has arisen and secondly the civil suit filed is barred by limitation. The learned Commercial Court has passed common order which is impugned on both the applications and dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in W.P.(227) No. 782 of 2019)

would submit that the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal. Rate contract for supply of goods between the parties is dated 11.12.1995. The agreement was between Western Coal Fields Limited and the petitioner- S.K.F. Bearings India Limited. After the supplies were made, on the basis of the report of Central Vigilance Commission dated 05.05.2016, the civil suit has been filed in the Court of Commercial Court, which is highly belated. The supply order was placed on 01.12.1998 to the M/s. S.K.F. Bearings India Limited, in which the petitioner M/s. Sujyoti India (P) Ltd. was not a party. Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 17.12.2018 against the petitioner Sujyoti India (P) Ltd. and petitioner in other case S.K.F. India seeking refund of differential amount of Rs.4,78,52,149.89. The petitioner preferred a W.P.(C) No. 248 of 2019 against this notice, on which the preliminary order has been passed on 30.01.2019 and the proceeding on the notice dated 17.12.2018 has been stayed.

5. Referring to Section 230 of Contract Act, 1872, it is submitted that petitioner Sujyoti India (P) Ltd. was an agent of S.K.F. India (P) Ltd., therefore, he is not personally bound by the contract, which was between the respondent No.1 and the S.K.F. Bearing India Ltd. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Board of Control for Cricket India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741, in case of Vivek Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Indian INC, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 657, and in case of Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 482 and the order of this Court in Review Petition No.5 of 2021, passed in case of Navkar Trade Links Vs.

Sharda Energy & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., decided on 24.02.2021. It is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable, therefore, relief be granted to the petitioner -M/s.

Sujyoti India (P) Ltd.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in W.P.(227) No. 901 of 2019 submits that the impugned order is against the provisions of law and thus perverse. It was burden of the respondent No.1 to issue price fall certificate but the same was never issued to the petitioner. The rate contract was in force till 30.06.2010, therefore, after termination of the contract in the year 2010, the suit that has been filed on 14.02.2018 by the respondent No.1 is much beyond the limitation. The pleading in the plaint that the cause of action arose on 05.05.2016 is a baseless statement. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Gujrat Vs. Kothari & Associates, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 761, in Fatehji @ Company & Ors. Vs. L.M. Nagpal & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 390, in Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Company Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Employees’ Estate Insurance Corporation, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 860, in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy & Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed Lrs. & Ors., reported in (2005) 5 SCC 548 and in case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Ors., reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467.

7. It is submitted that the respond