Delhi District Court
M/S Scj Plastics Ltd vs M/S Hill Packaging Ltd. & Ors on 22 August, 2013
Suit No. 877/12
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA,
CIVIL JUDGE7, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In Re. :
M/s SCJ Plastics Ltd.
...............Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Hill Packaging Ltd. & Ors.
............. Defendants
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, application of defendant no.2 moved under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC will be disposed of.
2. In the application, it is stated that by present suit the plaintiff seeks to recover amount of bills dated 08.11.2000, 24.11.2000 and 28.11.2000 whereas the suit was filed on 21.02.2004 which shows that suit for recovery for the said bills is time barred. It is also stated that order for the goods was placed at Dehradoon (Uttrakhand), goods was supplied at Dehradoon, sale tax form was given from Dehradoon and payment was also to be made from Dehradoon. Therefore, no cause of action arose in Delhi and the mere fact that registered office of erstwhile liquidated defendant no.1 company was situated in Delhi does not give the plaintiff a right to file a suit in Delhi. It is prayed that the plaint may either be rejected or be returned to plaintiff.
Page 1 of 3 Suit No. 877/123. In reply, it is stated that it is clear from the invoices that goods were supplied to defendant on credit of 90 days and the credit period expired on 06.02.2001, 22.02.2001, 28.03.2001, 08.04.2001 and 23.05.2001 and as per Article 15 of the Limitation Act, the limitation to file suit starts only after expiry of credit period. It is also stated that issuance of sales tax form by the defendant amounts to acknowledgment of debt and the same extended the limitation to file the suit for further three years. It is further stated that in view of Section 20 of CPC, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. It is prayed that the application may be dismissed with costs.
4. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the material available on record along with case laws relied on by the counsels.
5. Instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,38,000/ on the basis of invoices no.3052 dated 08.11.2000, 3284 dated 24.11.2000, 3713 dated 28.12.2000, 3814 dated 08.01.2001 and 4340 dated 22.02.2001.
Defendant has issued the central sales tax form to the plaintiff dated 15.06.2001 wherein particulars of all the aforesaid bills have been mentioned.
In M/s S.C.J. Master Batches Vs. M/s J.K. Cables Limited, CS(OS) 252/2005, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the CForms of declaration under the Central Sales Tax Act amounts to acknowledgment by defendant of due payable to the plaintiff and therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 19 of Page 2 of 3 Suit No. 877/12 the Limitation Act, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a fresh period of limitation of three years.
In the instant case, the sales tax form was issued on 15.06.2001 and limitation to file the present suit extended for further three years from the said date. The instant suit has been filed on 23.02.2004, which is well within the limitation period.
Further, in the written statement defendant has admitted that defendant company has its registered office at 5A/12, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi110002.
As per Section 20 of CPC a suit can be instituted in a court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily carries on the business or works for gain.
In the instant case, defendant company has its registered office within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, it is clear that defendant company carries on business in Delhi also. Hence, the present suit can be entertained and tried by this court.
Accordingly, in view of above said discussions, application of defendant no.2 stands dismissed.
Announced in the open court (Subhash Kumar Mishra) today i.e. 22.08.2013 Civil Judge07/West/THC Delhi Page 3 of 3