Delhi District Court
Star Propwell Pvt Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 13 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG SAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-01), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 282/2020
Star Propwell Pvt. Limited
Registered Office:-
B-231, Greater Kailash Par-1,
New Delhi-110048
Through its authorized representative
.........Plaintiff
Versus
State Bank of India
(Formerly State Bank of Patiala)
M.I.D. Corporate Branch,
Ground Floor, Ambadeep Building,
14 Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
Through its authorized representative
.......Defendant
Date of institution : 22.02.2020
Date of pronouncement : 13.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for recovery of Rs.58,73,850/- has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company registered with the Registrar of Companies. Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary has been authorized to sign, CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 1 of 40 verify, file and pursue the present case on behalf of the plaintiff by way of Board Resolution and he is fully conversant with the facts of the present case. As the State Bank of Patiala has been merged into the State Bank of India as per the notification dated 22.02.2017, the said State Bank of Patiala ceased to exist as individual entity and thus, it has become State Bank of India and hence the State Bank of India is being sued and the present suit is being filed against the defendant as State Bank of India. As per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff approached the defendant for sanction of term loan facility of Rs. 40,00,00,000/- for the purposes of construction of I.T. Park on 6995.16 sq. meters of the land situated at Plot No. 1C, Sector 126, Noida, U.P. The plaintiff has purchased the said land on lien basis for 90 years from New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), U.P. vide lease deed dated 18.06.2007. In pursuance to the request, the defendant issued sanction letter No. 447 dated 26.11.2015 by which the defendant had conveyed that the defendant had sanctioned term loan of Rs.40 Crore. In the said letter, it is also stated that the sanction granted by the defendant is valid upto 13.05.2016 for availment. It has also stated that after the expiry of the validity period, re-validation of the sanction is required and for such revalidation, the company has to pay one time upfront fee and revalidation charges. The said document also stipulated that the loan would be disbursed CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 2 of 40 after execution of all the security documents as suggested by the legal office/legal advisor of the bank. It also stipulated that vetting certificate would also be required from the Bank Advocate of the defendant and further the plaintiff was to get NOC from Noida Authority for creation of bank's charge on the project land. There were other terms and conditions mentioned in the said sanction letter. The plaintiff has requested for reduction of the rate of interest and upfront fee vide its letter dated 04.02.2016 and pursuant to the same, the defendant vide letter dated 04.02.2016 informed that the competent authority of the defendant had approved the rate of interest and upfront fee. That the plaintiff was seeking the disbursement and asking for the same time and again but the defendant postponed the said issue. It has come to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendant had written a letter dated 02.06.2016 to NOIDA authority thereby requesting for issuance of NOC/permission in favour of the defendant for creation of charge on the project land and from the said letter, it could be seen that the defendant has not taken appropriate steps for bring the operation of the validity period which had expired on 13.05.2016 and in the absence of the said aspect, the defendant did not disburse the loan to the plaintiff. The NOC was issued by the NOIDA authority on 29.06.2016 and was sent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter, submitted the said NOC to the defendant alongwith covering letter on CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 3 of 40 30.06.2016. Since the NOC was sought by the defendant after the period of validity i.e. after 13.05.2016, it could be implied that the defendant did not press for revalidation of the sanction letter nor they had requested or directed the plaintiff seeking revalidation and demanded any kind of charges much less the charges for the revalidation or upfront fee. That the plaintiff has submitted the required papers including the project report on 24.11.2016. That the defendant had appointed one Valuer and the Valuer submitted valuation report dated 30.11.2016 with the defendant which was subsequently provided to the plaintiff and the plaintiff submitted the same with the defendant on 03.12.2016. The plaintiff had already paid a sum of Rs.30,91,500/- on 29.03.2016. The plaintiff had written a letter dated 04.01.2017 to the defendant which was received by the defendant on 06.01.2017 for the grant and sanction of the term loan. The plaintiff had already infused Rs. 20 Crores as on 31.12.2016 as required as per sanction letter dated 26.11.2015. The plaintiff again submitted a letter dated 12.01.2017 to the defendant duly received by the defendant on 12.01.2017 vide which the plaintiff apprised that the project report was rectified with promoter contribution which came to be Rs.51.40 Crore and also entire details, as required by the defendant vide letter dated 10.01.2017, were furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff once again wrote a letter dated CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 4 of 40 23.01.2017 to the defendant which was duly received on 24.01.2017 to know about the current status of the loan. When nothing was heard, the plaintiff once again wrote a letter dated 03.03.2017 to the defendant with respect to the false and frivolous plea taken by the defendant just to avoid any disbursement of loan. When the defendant was not taking care nor was responding, the plaintiff had filed a Civil Writ Petition No.2507/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi praying therein for direction to the defendant to disburse the loan as per sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 by revalidating or otherwise charging fresh revalidation fee or any upfront fee without any future delay and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 20.03.2017 directed the defendant to take appropriate steps but not steps were taken by the defendant despite communication dated 22.03.2017 and reminder by the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the steps which had been pointed out and taken by the defendant itself would go to show that the defendant themselves had waived their right, title or interest to ask for revalidation charges or upfront fee in view of the fact that the defendant was fully aware about the period of term loan expiring on 13.05.2026 but the defendant had sought No Objection Certificate from NOIDA authority vide letter dated 02.06.2016 only after validity period expired on 13.05.2016 which shows that the defendant had waived their CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 5 of 40 right seeking revalidation or any charge or upfront fee. It has been further averred that even as on date, the defendant had never demanded or directed the plaintiff to pay or to make any payment of charge of any kind whatsoever and continued to correspond with the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff for submission of the requisite documents. On 10.01.2017, the defendant had demanded clarifications but without any whisper that the defendant was required to received the revalidation charges or upfront fee afresh. The plaintiff cannot be made to suffer on account of the fault on the part of the defendant as the plaintiff had not disobeyed any of the terms and conditions of the granting of sanctioned loan but the defendant was violating the said terms of disbursement as per the sanctioned letter dated 26.11.2015. It has been further averred that the defendant did not comply with the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter, the plaintiff had filed second Writ Petition (C) No. 3570/2017 which was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 09.10.2019 and thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the defendant has withheld the amount of Rs. 20,91,500/- since 29.03.2016 and has neither disbursed the loan nor has refunded the said amount as per the facts mentioned above, the plaintiff is entitled for interest @24% p.a. from 29.03.2016 as well as pendentelite and future till the date of CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 6 of 40 realization from the defendant. On these premise, the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant.
3. Written statement was filed by the defendant wherein the defendant has taken preliminary objections such as that at the time of issuance of sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 and 04.03.2016, the charging of upfront fees was communicated by the bank to the plaintiff that the upfront fees is an one time non- refundable fees and will not be refunded in case of non- availment and expiry of the validity of the sanction; Once the plaintiff had accepted the terms and conditions of the sanction letters 26.11.2015 and 04.03.20216 and did not avail the term loan facility and also allowed the same to expire, the plaintiff does not have any claim or any cause of action against the defendant bank; Though as per the extant instructions vide Circular No. SP/SNP/10/1617 dated 06.06.2016, the upfront fees for term loan was to be recovered at the time of disbursement but this condition is not applicable in the case of upfront fees charged by the defendant prior to the date of this extant instructions dated 06.06.2016; The plaintiff did not avail the loan during the validity period and allowed the validity period of sanction of loan to expire due to its own negligence; The plaintiff has admitted that they have infused own contribution in the project and as such did not avail the term loan during the validity period in its letter dated 20.10.2016.
CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 7 of 404. On merits, the defendant has averred that despite the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 and its validity, the plaintiff failed to approach the defendant for completion of formalities of execution of loan documents etc. and as such no loan documentation could be done and the loan was not disbursed. The delay in disbursement of loan after sanction cannot be attributed upon the defendant. Further, after sanction of term loan of Rs. 40 Crores, the plaintiff approached the defendant bank on 04.02.2016 requesting for reduction in the rate of interest and concession in upfront fee which was also accepted by the defendant and the necessary approval was conveyed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 04.03.2016 but the plaintiff did not approach the defendant for completion of necessary formalities i.e. execution of necessary loan and security documents, creation of charge on assets of the company etc. which were required to be completed before disbursement of loan and thus, the plaintiff did not avail the term loan during the validity period. It has been further averred that on the oral request of the plaintiff on 31.05.2016, the defendant bank wrote letter dated 02.06.2016 to NOIDa Authority seeking NOC for creation of mortgage of the project land and simultaneously vide letter dated 02.06.2016, the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff that the validity of sanction of term loan was valid upto 13.05.2016 and after the expiry of CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 8 of 40 validity period, revalidation of sanction was required and for such revalidation, the company was required to pay one time revalidation charges. It has been further averred that the plaintiff did not write any letter for revalidation of the sanction letter within time and for submitting the formal request for revalidation in writing, the plaintiff took considerable time and approached the bank vide letter dated 03.10.2016. It has been further averred that after the merger/amalgamation of associates bank with the State Bank of India, the plaintiff made representation dated 04.01.2017 for expending the sanction of term loan which was replied by the defendant vide letter dated 10.01.2017 seeking clarification and the clarifications were provided by the plaintiff vide letter dated 12.01.2017. It has been further averred that in terms of order dated 20.03.2017 in WP (C) 2507/2017, the defendant vide letter dated 31.03.2017 give its response to the representation dated 03.03.2017 and the plaintiff was advised that the entire proposal was forwarded to SBI Link Branch for reappraisal but the despite the receipt of the same, the plaintiff has not placed the same on record. Further the fact regarding letter dated 31.03.2017 has been concealed by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed CWP No. 3570/2017 inter alia praying for refund of the upfront fees paid by the plaintiff to the defendant which was withdrawn by the plaintiff as per order dated 09.10.2016 and upon granted CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 9 of 40 liberty to initiate civil action in accordance with law, the plaintiff has filed the present suit before this court. In sum and substance, the defendant has denied the allegations of the plaintiff. On these premise, the defendant has prayed for the dismissal of the present suit.
5. Replication to the written statement filed by the plaintiff wherein all the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed whereas those made in the written statement have been denied.
6. The court vide order dated 18.02.2021 framed following issues:-
1. Whether the upfront fees charged by the defendant is refundable as claimed by the plaintiff or non-refundable as claimed by the defendant ? OPP & OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount, if so to what extent ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so at what rate and for which period ? OPP
4. Relief, if any.
7. The court vide order dated 20.03.2021 appointed Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma, Former Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi as Court Commissioner to record evidence in the present case but due to Lockdown on account of Covid-19, the evidence could not be recorded and on the request of the parties for change of Local Commissioner, Ms Pinki, Former District CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 10 of 40 Judge, Commercial Court, Delhi was appointed as Local Commissioner to record evidence in the present case who recorded evidence in the present matter and filed the same before the court.
8. In order to prove it case, the plaintiff examined Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary as PW-1 who tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A which is on the line of the averments mentioned in the plaint. PW-1 has also relied upon documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/34. This witness was crossed examined on behalf of the defendant.
9. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Pradeep Grover, Manager Finance of the plaintiff as PW-2 who also tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. This witness was crossed examined on behalf of the defendant.
10.Vide separate statement, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff closed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff on 10.09.2021.
11.To rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined Sh. Anil Kumar Bansal, Assistant General Manager of the defendant as DW-1 who tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A which is on the line of the averments mentioned in the written statement. This witness relied upon documents exhibited as Ex. DW1/11. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
12.Defendant also examined Sh. Vishal Upadhyay, Chief Manager CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 11 of 40 of the defendant as DW-2 who tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
13.Vide separate statement, Ld. Counsel for the defendant closed defendant's evidence on 30.09.2021.
14.I have heard Sh. Sagar Chawla and Ms Chavi Chhiber, Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff as well as Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. I have also gone through the entire records of the case including pleadings of the parties, evidence led by the parties and documents proved by the parties during trial.
15.During the course of arguments, an issue arose with respect to the limitation in filing the present suit. The issue before the court is also whether for the purposes of calculating the limitation in filing the present suit, the delay in filing the present suit can be excluded and condoned by the court in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
16.Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that along with the present suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
17.In the application, the plaintiff has averred that the averments made in the plaint be considered as part and parcel of the present application. It has been further averred that when the defendant got deposited a sum of Rs.30,91,500/- on 29.03.2016 CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 12 of 40 as upfront fee with the defendant for the disbursement of the loan, the defendant was required to disburse the loan which has not been done and when no action was taken despite the correspondence dated 03.03.2017 written by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court had directed the defendant to give a response to the representation dated 03.03.2017 but the defendant evaded and gave a false and frivolous reply and consequently the plaintiff had to file second Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 3570/2017 on 25.04.2017. The defendant even when filed the counter affidavit did not disburse the loan nor refunded the amount so charged when the loan was not disbursed. It has been further averred that on 21.02.2018, the defendant filed a copy of the circular dated 06.06.2016 by which it was stated by the defendant that the defendant bank could recover unfront fee only at the time of disbursement of the loan but despite the said circular, the defendant neither disbursed the loan nor refunded the amount which was deposited by the plaintiff as per the directions of the defendant bank. It has been further averred that ultimately 09.10.2019, the Hon'ble High Court permitted the plaintiff to pursue appropriate remedy before the competent court of law and was also permitted to move an application seeking condonation of delay, if any, for the time which was spent in pursuing the writ petition before the CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 13 of 40 Hon'ble High Court. It has been further averred that infact the plaintiff has been pursuing the matter for disbursement of the loan and when the disbursement was not agreed to, the plaintiff had also sought an alternate prayer for refund/release of the amount deposited vide amended Writ Petition dated 14.11.2017. It has been further averred that despite the said alternate prayer, the defendant neither disbursed the loan nor refunded the amount and as such while hearing the matter on 09.10.2019 had permitted to pursue the refund and also permitted to move an appropriate application for condonation of delay for the period which was spend in pursuing the matter before the Hon'ble High Court in case there is any delay in preferring the present suit. It has been further averred that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant nor there is any such averment which has been recorded while the order dated 09.10.2019 was passed and as such the present application has been moved in accordance with the liberty granted in case of need. On these premise, the plaintiff has prayed to exempt/condone the delay, if any, in filing the present suit and to exempt the period during which the Writ Petitions were pending before the Hon'ble High Court being bonafide.
18.No reply to the application has been filed by the defendant.
19.Ld. counsel for the plaintiff argued that the present suit is within limitation and the plaintiff has filed the instant application as an CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 14 of 40 abundant caution. He however, argued that lastly the cause of action arose on 10.01.2017 when the defendant wrote the last letter to the plaintiff seeking clarifications regarding the revised project report. He further argued that thereafter, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 12.01.2017 to the defendant and the plaintiff also wrote a letter dated 23.01.2017 which were received by the defendant. He further argued that after receiving no response to the letter, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant again on 03.03.2017 and ultimately when nothing was heard, the plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and thereafter second Writ Petition was filed on 25.04.2017 which was withdrawn on 09.10.2019. He further argued that the present suit has been filed before this court on 22.02.2020 and prayed that the period spent on filing the Writ Petition 2507/2017 and Writ Petition 3570/2017 be excluded from the limitation period. He further argued that the plaintiff has filed the Writ Petitions in a bona fide manner and there was no negligence or malice involved. He further argued that the plaintiff shall not be left remediless on account of limitation as the section is meant to provide protection to a litigant against the bar of limitation when he institutes a proceedings which by reason of some technical defect cannot be decided on merits and is dismissed. He further argued that the duration spent on the Writ Petition which was dismissed on technical grounds shall be CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 15 of 40 considered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and prayed that the period spent on pursuing the Writ Petitions be excluded from the limitation and the present case falls well within the limitation period. In support of the contentions, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon certain judgments viz (1) Laxmidas Morarji Vs. Behrose Darab Madan, (2009) 10 SCC 425, (2) M.P. Steel Corpn. Vs. CCE, (2015) 7 SCC 58, (3) Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169, (4) Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 458 and (5) Rameshwarlal Vs. Municipal Council Tonk, (1996) 6 SCC 100.
20.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant had sanctioned the term loan of Rs.40 Lac to the plaintiff vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 which was valid till 13.05.2016 but the plaintiff did not fulfill the terms and conditions of sanction letter dated 26.11.2015. He further argued that the cause of action to file the present suit has accrued after expiry of sanction letter. He further argued that though there are communications between the parties after 13.05.2016 but the defendant nowhere acknowledged the extension of validation period of sanction letter or the refund of the upfront fee to the plaintiff. He further argued that the period spent in the Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cannot be excluded and the Hon'ble High Court has not CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 16 of 40 condoned the same which is apparent from order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. He further argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation and prayed for the dismissal of the same.
21.When a plea of limitation is taken, it is the duty of the Court to adjudicate the same on merits. The object of the Limitation Act is to quiet long claim and extinguish stale demands. The principle upon which the statues of limitation are based is, that it is in the interest of the state that remedies for violated rights should be sought in court without delay. Thus, the object of the statute is to make the litigant public vigilant in pursuing its remedy and also to prevent harassment to the opposite party by bringing stale claims before the legal forum. It primarily bars a remedy for a litigant but does not bar a right. The law of limitation prevents persons from enforcing their own rights, and disputing the rights of others, after a certain period of time, and thus quiets titles and enhances the value of the property. In Jones Vs. Bellgrove Properties Ltd., (1949) 2 KB 700 it was observed that ".....If a claim is made for payment of a debt many years after it has been incurred, there may be difficulty in proving that the debt ever was in fact incurred or that it has not already been paid and so forth. That is why the law bars the right of action after a certain period has elapsed from the accrual of the cause of action........" Again in R. B. Policies at CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 17 of 40 Lloyd's v. Butler, (1950) 1 KB 76 it was said that "I agree with Mr. Atkinson that it is a policy of the Limitation Acts that those who go to sleep upon their claims should not be assisted by the Courts in recovering their property, but another, and, I think, equal policy behind these Acts, is that there shall be an end of litigation, and that protection shall be afforded against stale demands."
22.Para 39 of the plaint regarding cause of action is reproduced as under:-
"39 That the cause of action has arisen on various dates when the plaintiff has been complying with the directions but the defendant had not been disbursing the loan to the plaintiff which was sanctioned on 26.11.2015 vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2015; The cause of action has also arisen on 13.03.2016 when the defendant had approved concessional rate of interest valid upto 13.03.2016; The cause of action has also arisen on 02.06.2016 when the defendant had asked for No Objection Certificate from NOIDA Authority; The cause of action has arisen on 26.09.2016 when NOIDA authority had issued Mortgage permission in favour of the defendant bank; The cause of action has also arisen on 12.01.2017 when the plaintiff had submitted the letter to the defendant; The cause of action also arose on December 2018 when the project completion period was stated as required by the defendant; The cause of action further continued when the plaintiff had written letter dated 23.01.2017 and 03.03.2017 when the plaintiff made representation; The cause of action further arose on 20.03.2017 when the Hon'ble High Court had directed the defendant to decide/give response to the representation dated 03.03.2017 and further arose when the defendant illegally and authorizedly sent response dated 31.03.2017; The cause of action further arose on 25.04.2017 when the plaintiff had filed WP (C ) No. 3570/2017; The cause of action further arose when the plaintiff filed an alternate prayer for release of the upfront fee on 14.11.2017; The cause of action CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 18 of 40 further arose when the defendant filed additional affidavit along with document; The cause of action further arose on 09.10.2019 when the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the writ petition; The cause of action is still continuing and subsisting one as the defendant had not refunded the upfront fee amount to Rs.30,91,500/- which was received by the defendant even without disbursing the loan, the defendant had not returned the said amount along with interest and as such the cause of action is further continuing and subsisting one and hence the present suit"
23.Section 18 of the Limitation Act is as under:-
"18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.- (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period of a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed;
but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence of its contents shall not be received".
24.To constitute a valid acknowledgment there must be a definite or clear admission of the existing liability. It does not create any new right of action but only enlarges the time and has the effect of making a new period run from the date of acknowledgment. In order to fall within the provisions of Section 18, the acknowledgment, if any, has to be made prior to the expiration of the prescribed period for filing the suit, once limitation period prescribed has expired, it would not revive under this CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 19 of 40 section. It is only during subsistence of a period of limitation, if any, such document is executed, that the limitation would be revived afresh from the date of acknowledgment.
25.As per Section 18 of Limitation Act, an acknowledgment of present subsisting liability, made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgment is signed. Such acknowledgment need not be accompanied by a promise to pay expressly or even by implication. However, the acknowledgment must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired.
26.It is admitted case of the plaintiff that the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 was valid up to 13.05.2016. Perusal of section letter dated 26.11.2015 shows that after expiry of the validity period, revalidation of the sanction was required and for such revalidation, the plaintiff company has to pay one time upfront fee and revalidation charges. Admittedly, the validity of the sanction letter was expired on 13.05.2016 but the plaintiff did not apply for revalidation of the same nor the plaintiff made any request to the defendant for extension of period of validity of the aforesaid sanction letter before the expiry of the same.
27.The plaintiff has taken the plea that the defendant did not obtain the NOC from NOIDA authority for creation of defendant CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 20 of 40 bank's charge on the project land before the expiry of the validity of the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 and thus, it was defendant who did not fulfill the terms and conditions of sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 and there is no fault on the part of the plaintiff. It is further the plea of the plaintiff that the defendant applied for NOC from the Noida Authority on 02.06.2016 i.e. after the expiry of validity period on 13.05.2016 of sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 and thus, the plaintiff was under the impression that the defendant did not press for revalidation of the sanction letter and also the defendant did not requested or directed the plaintiff for seeking revalidation of sanction letter or demanded any revalidation charge or upfront fee.
28.I have perused sanction letter dated 26.11.2015. Vide this sanction letter, the defendant had sanctioned a secured term loan facility of Rs. 40 Crores for construction of an IT Park at Section 126, Plot No.1C, Noida (UP). The said sanction was valid upto 13.05.2016 for availment. It has been specifically mentioned in the sanction letter that after expiry of the validity period, revalidation of the sanction was required and for such revalidation, the plaintiff has to pay one time upfront fee and revalidation charges. Along with the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015, the detailed terms and conditions of the term loan facility are also enclosed as Annexure 'A'.
CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 21 of 4029.I have also perused the detailed terms and conditions of the term loan facility enclosed as Annexure 'A' with sanction letter. Column 10 of the same pertains to security and in 10 (1), it has been mentioned as '1st charge on leasehold rights by way of mortgage of Project land admeasuring 6995.16 sq mtrs situated at Section 126, Plot No. 1C, Noida (U.P.). This land was purchased from New Okhla Industrial Development (NOIDA) vide lease deed dated 18th day of June 2007 for 90 years lease basis. NOIDA has alloted the said land to the Company vide allotment letter no. 2405 dated 07.03.2005 for development of the said land for IT & IT enabled services. The Company will expedite to get mortgage permission from the competent authority'. Further there was pre-disbursement conditions in the said Annexure 'A' i.e. Column 29 and in 29 (3), it has been mentioned as 'Getting NOC from Noida Authority for creation of our Bank's charge on the project land'.
30.The language of Column 10 (1) and Column 29 (3) clearly reflects that it was the plaintiff who had to obtain NOC from NOIDA authority for creation of mortgage of the project land and not the defendant as the project land in question was allotted to the plaintiff. It is obvious fact that a person who has purchased the leasehold property from any development authority, can apply for creation of mortgage of the said property with the said authority for availing loan facility against CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 22 of 40 the said property. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not applied for NOC from NOIDA within the validity period of sanction letter and thus, the aforesaid pleas taken by the plaintiff thereby casting duty upon the defendant to obtain NOC, hold no water. Though the plaintiff has taken the plea that the defendant had applied for the NOC from NOIDA authority on 02.06.2016 i.e. after the expiry of the validity period of sanction letter but the said plea of the plaintiff holds no water inasmuch as perusal of the NOC dated 29.06.2016 so issued by the NOIDA authority also shows that it was issued in the name of the plaintiff to the plaintiff and not to the defendant bank and it is also admitted case of the plaintiff that original of the said NOC was got by the plaintiff from the NOIDA authority as mentioned in letters dated 04.01.2017 and 03.03.2017 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and the same was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant on 30.06.2016.
31.During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon letter dated 15.05.2017 written by the defendant to the plaintiff and argued that vide this letter, the defendant has acknowledged the liability in the present case and thus, the period of limitation in filing the present suit also starts from the said date.
32.I have perused the said letter. Perusal of the same shows that in the said letter, the defendant has nowhere acknowledged its CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 23 of 40 liability and the said letter was with respect to the re-appraisal of the entire proposal of term loan as the project was lastly apprised by the defendant bank in the month of November 2015 and in fact in the said letter, it has been written that the plaintiff company is required to pay the upfront fees and other charges for TEV study etc. Thus, the said letter cannot be terms as acknowledgment of liability on the part of the defendant.
33.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon letter dated 03.10.2016 written by the plaintiff to the defendant and argued that in this letter, the plaintiff itself has admitted that they did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction letter within the period of validity of the same and thus, there is no fault on the part of the defendant.
34.I have perused letter dated 03.10.2016. The said letter was written by the plaintiff to the defendant for reimbursement of promoter's contribution of about Rs.9.93 crore. Perusal of the same shows that in the said letter the plaintiff has admitted that '.....inadvertently, we have not availed the facility within 06 months from the date of sanction letter. Hence, the validity of the said sanction letter expired. As project is going on very well, we request you to please revalidate the said sanction letter and allow us to disburse the term loan facility immediately'.
35.It is apparent from the record that the plaintiff did not apply for revalidation of the sanction letter with the defendant before the CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 24 of 40 expiry of the validation period i.e. 13.05.2016 and whatever the communications viz letter dated 03.10.2016 written by the plaintiff to the defendant wherein the plaintiff has also requested the defendant for revalidation of the sanction letter and the letter dated 20.10.2016 written by the plaintiff to the defendant requesting therein for waiver of revalidation fees, the same were sent by the plaintiff to the defendant after the expiry period i.e. 13.05.2016 of the validity of the sanction letter 26.11.2015.
36.It is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not aware that the sanction letter 26.11.2015 requires revalidation before its expiry as it was valid upto 13.05.2016 but for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff chosen to keep mum over its rights.
37.From the language of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it cannot be inferred from any angle that the defendant has made definite/clear admission of existing liability qua the plaintiff. Also, the case of the plaintiff also does not fall within the ambit of Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act as the language of communications of the letters/replies by the defendant to the plaintiff shows that the same are not a promise to revalidate the sanction letter.
38.It is also the case of the plaintiff that the period during which the Writ Petitions remained pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi needs to be excluded under Section 14 of the CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 25 of 40 Limitation Act. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has filed Civil Writ Petition dated 16.03.2017 before the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or directions thereby directing the defendant to disburse the loan which has been sanctioned as per the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 by revalidating or otherwise without charging fresh revalidation fee or any upfront fee without any further delay in accordance with law. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the Hon'ble High Court has passed order in the said WP (C) 2507/2017 on 20.03.2017 which is reproduced as under:-
"Order 20.03.2017
1. The limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition is that despite repeated representations made by it to the respondent/bank for sanction of a loan of Rs.40 Crores, the Bank has not taken any steps to disburse the said amount.
2. Mr. Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the court to the letter dated 03.3.2017, enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-13 and states that this was the last representation made by the petitioner to the respondent/Bank for sanction of the loan, but no response has been received from the respondent/Bank so far.
3. Mr. Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears on advance notice, assures the Court that the Bank shall convey its decision to the petitioner in response to the representation dated 03.3.2017, within one week.
4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondent/Bank, he shall be entitled to seek legal recourse.
5. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications."CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 26 of 40
39.It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has filed Civil Writ Petition dated 22.04.2017 before the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or directions thereby directing the defendant to disburse the loan which has been sanctioned as per the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 by revalidating or otherwise without charging fresh revalidation fee or any upfront fee without any further delay in accordance with law coupled with the fact that the defendant having failed to comply with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Court dated 20.03.2017.
40.It is further the case of the plaintiff that amended Writ Petition (C) No. 3570/2017 was filed by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the plaintiff has prayed to alternatively issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or directions thereby directing the defendant not to retain and consequently release the amount of Rs.30 lakhs which was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant for the disbursement of the loan in accordance with the law.
41.It is further the case of the plaintiff that the Hon'ble High Court passed order in the said WP (C) 3570/2017 on 09.10.2019 which is reproduced as under:-
"ORDER CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 27 of 40 09.10.2019
1. After some arguments, Mr. K. Sunil, counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to take recourse to an appropriate course of action as per law.
2. Furthermore, Mr. K. Sunil says that the time spent in pursuing the captioned writ petition be condoned.
3. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Insofar as the condonation of delay qua the time spent in pursuing the writ petition is concerned, this Court cannot condone the delay.
5. In case such an application is moved, the concerned Court will, I am sure, consider the same as per law.
6. Liberty is, however, given to pursue a civil action, albeit, in accordance with the law.
42.The plaintiff has prayed for exclusion of period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act during which the Writ Petitions remained pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
43.Now let us see whether the averments made by the plaintiff in the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC make out the case of exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in the court without jurisdiction.
44.To better appreciate the contentions of the parties, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is reproduced which as under:-
"14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in Court without jurisdiction.-(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 28 of 40 against the defendant shall be excluded where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, where in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the Court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the Court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section-
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a lime nature with defect of jurisdiction.
45.Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been enacted by the legislature to exempt a period covered by litigious activity and to protect a litigant against the bar of limitation when a proceeding is dismissed on account of a technical defect instead of being decided on merits. The intent is to prevent a litigant CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 29 of 40 from being saddled with an adverse decision, which is, on account of the fact that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the case.
46.Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the plaintiff had been prosecuting, with due diligence, another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance, or of appeal or revision, against the same party, for the same relief, shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, is unable to entertain it. The conditions for exclusion are that the earlier proceedings should have been for the same relief, the proceedings should have been prosecuted diligently and in good faith and the proceedings should have been prosecuted in a forum which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it.
47.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 169 while elaborating on the principles laid down in a case titled as Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan Vs. Ramkrishna Govind Bhanu and Ors, AIR 1958 SC 767 has pithily put the conditions which must be satisfied for applicability of Section CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 30 of 40 14 of the Limitation Act, which are as under:-
(1) Both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party;
(2) The prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;
(3) The failure of the prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;
(4) The earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and;
(5) Both the proceedings are in a court...."
48.It has further been held in the Consolidated Engineering case that to attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, all five pre-conditions have to co-exist. It is not enough if only some of these pre-conditions are present, all these must exist side by side.
49.So what is good faith? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavrao Narayanrao case has clarified that since the Limitation Act provides for its own definition of good faith, the definition as contained in General Clauses Act, 1897 would not apply.
50.Good faith is defined in Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act as:
"2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- ....
(h) "good faith"--nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention;"CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 31 of 40
51.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Madhavrao Narayanrao case while discussing the term 'due care and attention' in the context of Section 14 of the Limitation Act has held that what needs to be seen is whether the plaintiff has brought on the record any evidence to show that he was prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.
52.The measure of due diligence and prosecuting in good faith is to be decided on the facts of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Consolidated Engineering case has explained this principle in a succinct manner below :
"31.To attract the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, five conditions enumerated in the earlier part of this judgment have to co-exist. There is no manner of doubt that the section deserves to be construed liberally. Due diligence and caution are essential prerequisites for attracting Section 14. Due diligence cannot be measured by any absolute standards. Due diligence is a measure of prudence or activity expected from and ordinarily exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under the particular circumstances. The time during which a court holds up a case while it is discovering that it ought to have been presented in another court, must be excluded, as the delay of the court cannot affect the due diligence of the party. Section 14 requires that the prior proceeding should have been prosecuted in good faith and with due diligence. The definition of good faith as found in Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act would indicate that nothing shall be deemed to be in good faith which is not done with due CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 32 of 40 care and attention. It is true that Section 14 will not help a party who is guilty of negligence, lapse or inaction. However, there can be no hard-and-fast rule as to what amounts to good faith. It is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case. It will, in almost every case be more or less a question of degree. The mere filing of an application in wrong court would not prima facie show want of good faith. There must be no pretended mistake intentionally made with a view to delaying the proceedings or harassing the opposite party. In the light of these principles, the question will have to be considered whether the appellant had prosecuted the matter in other courts with due diligence and in good faith."
53.Applying the principles set forth in the Consolidated Engineering case and the Madhavrao Narayan Rao case, what needs to be seen as to whether the pre-conditions 'co-exist' in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff has to show that he was bonafidely and with due diligence pursuing its Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court. Also there can be no dispute with the proposition that the period of limitation for filing the present case is three years from the date of accrual of the right to sue i.e. the date of default. However, the analysis of the sequence of events in the present case suggests just the opposite.
54.Perusal of W.P. (C) 2507/2017 dated 16.03.2017 filed by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi shows that in CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 33 of 40 the said petition, the plaintiff has prayed for issuance of directions to the defendant for disbursement of the loan as sanctioned by the defendant vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2015. In the said petition, the plaintiff also prayed for issuance of directions to the defendant for revalidation of the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 or otherwise without charging any fresh revalidation fee or any up front fee. The prayer made by the plaintiff in the aforesaid written petition clearly shows that the plaintiff was aware that the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 had expired on 13.05.2016 and it seems that in the garb of the aforesaid writ petition, the plaintiff was trying to revalidate the said sanction letter. The said writ petition was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 20.03.2017. Perusal of order dated 20.03.2017 shows that the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Hon'ble High Court to letter dated 03.03.2017 and stated that the defendant has not given any response to their said letter to which the defendant has assured that the Hon'ble High Court that the defendant shall convey its decision on letter dated 03.03.2017 to the plaintiff within one week. The said petition was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court with the observation that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the defendant, the plaintiff shall be entitled to seek legal recourse. There the case of the plaintiff is not relating to the recovery therefore, the subject matter of the CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 34 of 40 same is different than the present one.
55.The plaintiff has again filed Writ Petition dated 22.04.2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in the said petition, the plaintiff has prayed for issuance of directions to the defendant for disbursement of the loan as sanctioned by the defendant vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2015. In the said petition also, the plaintiff also prayed for issuance of directions to the defendant for revalidation of the sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 or otherwise without charging any fresh revalidation fee or any upfront fee without any further delay in accordance with the law coupled with the fact that the defendant having failed to comply with the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 20.03.2017.
56.As per order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) 2507/2017 dated 16.03.2017, the defendant has to convey its decision on letter dated 03.03.2017 to the plaintiff within one week. As per the record, the defendant has given its response of letter dated 03.03.2017 vide letter dated 31.03.2017 to the plaintiff wherein the defendant has stated that term loan of Rs.40 Crores was sanctioned by the defendant vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 which was valid upto 13.05.2016 however, the plaintiff has not approached the defendant for disbursement of the sanctioned term loan nor any steps were taken by the plaintiff for completing formalities; The CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 35 of 40 plaintiff did not approach the defendant for completion of necessary formalities i.e. execution of necessary security documents, creation of charge on the assets of the company etc. which were required to be completed before disbursement of loan and sanction was allowed to expire by the plaintiff by not taking steps. Despite aggrieved with the response dated 31.03.2017, the plaintiff instead of availing effective and efficacious remedy, has again approached the Hon'ble High Court by again filing the Writ Petition knowing fully well that the earlier Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court with the observations that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision of the defendant, the plaintiff shall be entitled to seek legal recourse. However, no legal recourse as well as effective and efficacious remedies were availed by the plaintiff which also clearly reflects lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff.
57.Perusal of the record further shows that amended W.P. (C) 3570/2017 dated 14.11.2017 was filed by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court and in the said petition, the plaintiff alternatively also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or directions thereby directing the defendant not to retain and consequently release the amount of Rs.30 Lac which was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant for the disbursement of the loan in accordance with CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 36 of 40 the law. The order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the said petition is on record which shows that the plaintiff sought to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to take recourse to an appropriate course of action as per law and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble High Court. Perusal of the said order also shows that the plaintiff sought to condone the time spent in pursuing the said writ petition but the same was not condoned by the Hon'ble High Court however, the Hon'ble High Court observed that in case such an application is moved, the concerned court will consider the same as per law and further liberty was given to the plaintiff to pursue a civil action, albeit, in accordance with the law. There the case of the plaintiff is not relating to the recovery therefore, the subject matter of the same is different than the present one.
58.The withdrawal of W.P. (C) 3570/2017 by the plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff was aware that the Hon'ble High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an effective and efficacious remedy were very much available with the plaintiff which the plaintiff did not avail in time. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ and in the absence of any legal right, the Hon'ble High Court cannot exercise the said power. Though the alternative remedy not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 37 of 40 where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. The plaintiff must exhaust the remedies available under the law instead of filing the writs of mandamus before the Hon'ble High Court while availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
59.The main ingredients required for attracting the principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are that the party should be prosecuting another civil proceedings with due diligence and that the prosecution should be in good faith and the earlier proceedings and latter proceedings must relate to the same matter in issue. It is not enough that one part is satisfied. All conditions must co-exist as has been held Consolidated Engineering case (supra) and must be established. However, in the facts of the present case as discussed above, it cannot be said that there was due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. Under Section 2 (h) of the Limitation Act, 1963, nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention. The facts as narrated above would also show lack of good faith on the part of the plaintiff in conducting its case. Thus, the plaintiff having not prosecuted his case with due diligence and good faith is not entitled for the application of the CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 38 of 40 principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Also, as per Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act, it is also one of the condition for exclusion that the earlier proceedings should have been for the same relief however, in the present case, the subject matter of the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court and in the present case are different inasmuch as the present case before this court is for recovery of the amount whereas the case of the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court was for the reliefs of seeking directions to the defendant for disbursement of the loan as sanctioned by the defendant vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 and for revalidation of the said sanction letter without charging any fresh revalidation fee or any upfront fee or in alternatively seeking directions to the defendant to not to retain and consequently release the amount of Rs.30 Lac which was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant.
60.In view of the aforesaid discussions, the court is of the opinion, that the application of the plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is apparently without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
61.From the above, it is clear that the plaintiff ought to have filed the present suit within three years after the expiry of validity period of sanction letter dated 26.11.2015 which has admittedly expired on 13.05.2016, however, the present suit has been filed CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 39 of 40 on 22.02.2020. Hence, the present suit is apparently barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, the present suit is dismissed. There is no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
62.File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the Open Court today on 13.08.2024) (Anurag Sain) District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 40 of 40 CS (COMM.) 282/20 STAR PROPWELL PVT LTD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA 13.08.2024 Present:- None.
Earlier Ms Chavi Chhiber, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has appeared.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, the application of the plaintiff under Section 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC is dismissed and accordingly, the present suit is dismissed being barred by law of limitation. There is no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
(Anurag Sain) District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi/13.08.2024 CS (COMM.) 282/2020 Page 41 of 40