UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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