Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Court Rejects Appeal, Stating Limitation is No Excuse for Delay: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for recovery of dues by the Commercial Court. The High Court ruled, “Mere correspondence of the appellant by way of writing letters/reminders to the respondent subsequent to this date would not extend the time of limitation.” The court upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that the limitation period is not a mere formality.

The appellant, Shri Anil Khandelwal, had filed the appeal against an order dated July 12, 2022, by the Commercial Court, Delhi. The Commercial Court had dismissed the appellant’s suit on two grounds: first, it was filed beyond the period of limitation, and second, it was not maintainable because of an arbitration agreement between the parties.

The High Court agreed with the lower court that the existence of an arbitration agreement does not preclude a party from filing a suit for the adjudication of its claims in court. However, in case of such a suit, the counterparty is entitled to file an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a reference to arbitration.

Regarding the limitation issue, the appellant argued that the suit was filed within the limitation period, primarily based on a payment made by the respondent in 2018. However, the High Court carefully examined the facts and found that certain claims made by the appellant were barred by limitation, while others were not. The court emphasized that the limitation period begins when the cause of action arises and that unilateral communications by the claimant do not stop the clock.

The judgment serves as a reminder that adherence to limitation periods is crucial in legal proceedings. It highlights the significance of filing claims within the stipulated time frame, as any delay may result in certain claims being time-barred.

Date of Decision: January 05, 2024

SHRI ANIL KHANDELWAL VS THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

 

Latest Legal News