M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. versus ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786787 OF 2019 IN

M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. versus ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786787 OF 2019 IN

The review petitions were dismissed because there was no error apparent on the face of the record: the plaint did not plead or prove the facts necessary to invoke Section 19 (no written acknowledgment pleaded), plaintiffs had pleaded that Limitation Act did not apply due to the 1993 Act (so the proviso to Order VII r.6 could not be used to raise Section 19 belatedly), Section 14 benefit was not available as the writ petition was by a different entity, and there was nothing on record to show supplies were made after enforcement of the 1993 Act; hence the original conclusion that the suit was time-barred stands.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.; Respondent: ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Review Petition (civil) / Review Dismissed
Outcome
Review petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 19 Limitation Act, Section 14 Limitation Act, Order VII Rule 6 CPC, Scope of Review, Maintainability of Appeal, Interest on Delayed Payment
Limitation Act, 1963 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 Section 19 Limitation Act Section 14 Limitation Act Order VII Rule 6 CPC Scope of Review Maintainability of Appeal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.

Appellant/petitioner

ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Petition (civil) / Review Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the money suit by M/s Shanti Conductors was barred by limitation
  2. 2 Whether payment on 05.03.1994 gave rise to a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 Limitation Act, 1963
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs could claim exclusion of time under Section 14 Limitation Act by virtue of a writ petition filed by an association of which plaintiff was a member

Ratio Decidendi

The review petitions were dismissed because there was no error apparent on the face of the record: the plaint did not plead or prove the facts necessary to invoke Section 19 (no written acknowledgment pleaded), plaintiffs had pleaded that Limitation Act did not apply due to the 1993 Act (so the proviso to Order VII r.6 could not be used to raise Section 19 belatedly), Section 14 benefit was not available as the writ petition was by a different entity, and there was nothing on record to show supplies were made after enforcement of the 1993 Act; hence the original conclusion that the suit was time-barred stands.

Court Disposition

Review petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Review Petitions (C) Nos. 786–787, 788 and 789 of 2019 dismissed.