SHYAM MADAN MOHAN RUIA & ORS. versus MESSER HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.

SHYAM MADAN MOHAN RUIA & ORS. versus MESSER HOLDINGS LIMITED & ORS.

In light of the Three-Judge Bench decision in Nusli Veville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors. and the repeal of Section 9A (Maharashtra), limitation cannot be decided solely as a preliminary issue under Section 9A; therefore the orders that treated limitation as a preliminary issue are set aside and Suit No.2410 of 2008 must proceed afresh from framing of issues with limitation to be determined along with other issues.

Parties
Appellant: Shyam Madan Mohan Ruia & Ors.; Respondent No.1: Messer Holdings Limited; Respondent No.2: Bombay Oxygen Investments Ltd.; Respondent No.3: Messers Giresheim GmbH; Respondent No.4: Goyal MG Gases Private Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (from High Court Division Bench Order) / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Commercial Appeal No.148 of 2017 Arising Out of Suit No.2410 of 2008; Disposal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal disposed of by setting aside the impugned High Court orders and remanding the suit for fresh proceedings from the stage of framing issues; no opinion on merits
Legal Topics
Section 9 a CPC (maharashtra Amendment), Preliminary Issues, Jurisdiction, Limitation, Saving Clause
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Statutory Interpretation Section 9 a CPC (maharashtra Amendment) Preliminary Issues Jurisdiction Limitation Saving Clause

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shyam Madan Mohan Ruia & Ors.

Appellant

Messer Holdings Limited

Respondent No.1

Bombay Oxygen Investments Ltd.

Respondent No.2

Messers Giresheim GmbH

Respondent No.3

Goyal MG Gases Private Limited

Respondent No.4

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (from High Court Division Bench Order) / Appeal From Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Commercial Appeal No.148 of 2017 Arising Out of Suit No.2410 of 2008; Disposal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a preliminary issue framed under Section 9A CPC could be used to decide limitation as a preliminary issue prior to trial
  2. 2 Whether Suit No.2410 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 was barred by limitation
  3. 3 Effect of repeal of Section 9A (Maharashtra) and the Three-Judge Bench decision in Nusli Veville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors. on proceedings where a preliminary issue under Section 9A was framed and pending

Ratio Decidendi

In light of the Three-Judge Bench decision in Nusli Veville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors. and the repeal of Section 9A (Maharashtra), limitation cannot be decided solely as a preliminary issue under Section 9A; therefore the orders that treated limitation as a preliminary issue are set aside and Suit No.2410 of 2008 must proceed afresh from framing of issues with limitation to be determined along with other issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of by setting aside the impugned High Court orders and remanding the suit for fresh proceedings from the stage of framing issues; no opinion on merits

Orders

  • Order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No.2410 of 2008 and the order dated 08.08.2019 (corrected on 19.09.2019) of the Division Bench in Commercial Appeal No.148 of 2017 are set aside
  • Suit No.2410 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 shall proceed afresh from the stage of framing of issues and the question of limitation shall be determined along with other issues arising for consideration