[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Micky Metals Limited vs National Steel Agency And on 25 February, 2026
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
Judgment (2)
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
MICKY METALS LIMITED
VS
NATIONAL STEEL AGENCY AND
ORS
For the plaintiff : Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar Diwedi, Adv.
Mr. Hareram Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saptarshi Rajan Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Arghodip Das, Adv.
For the defendant No. 2 : Mr. Shaswat Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Indradeep Basu, Adv.
Ms. Siddhi Agarwal, Adv.
Heard on : February 25, 2026
Judgment on : February 25, 2026
[In Court]
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J :
FACTS:
1. This is a commercial suit.
2. The defendant No. 2 has taken out the instant application, inter
alia, praying for rejection of plaint, alternatively dismissal of the
suit along with other consequential reliefs.
3. The plaint case is that the plaintiff has sold and delivered goods
to defendant No. 1, a registered partnership firm of which the
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. The other plaint case is
that the defendants have accepted and received the goods but
has not paid the total sale consideration, as agreed upon by and
between the parties.
4. The plaint is available at page 16 to the application. The plaint
states that in or around 2014, the plaintiff commenced supply of
goods to the defendants and payment on account of such supply
was made by the defendants intermittently to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff states that the parties maintained a mutual, open,
current and running accounts. The defendant No. 1 received the
goods without any protest and has consumed and utilized the
same. No complaint was ever brought to the notice of the plaintiff
with regard to the quality and quantity of the goods sold and
supplied by the plaintiff. The tax invoices were raised, the same
would appear at page 28 to the application.
5. The plaint further states that the defendants delayed in making
payment and after adjusting all amounts paid by the defendants
from time to time, the plaintiff states a sum of Rs.10,24,680/-
was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
account of the goods sold and delivered as on December 19,
2015. The statement in the plaint further shows in
acknowledgement of its liability, the defendant No. 1 had
tendered a cheque dated July 27, 2020 for a sum of
Rs.10,24,680/- in discharge of its obligation. The plaint states
that issuance of the said cheque amounts to an admission of
liability on the part of the defendants towards the plaintiff. Upon
presentation of the said cheque was dishonored, the plaintiff has
initiated the appropriate criminal case.
6. Paragraph 15 of the plaint shows that the principal claim made
by the plaintiff is for a sum of Rs.9,99,680/- along with interest.
7. In the premises, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit with the
reliefs mentioned therein.
8. The defendant No. 2 being the applicant has applied for rejection
of plaint on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff, ex facie is
barred by law of limitation.
SUBMISSIONS:
9. Mr. Shaswat Nayak, learned Advocate appearing for the
defendant No. 2/applicant has placed the plaint and drawn
attention of this Court to diverse annexures appended thereto.
Referring to the averments made in the plaint, learned
Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that even if the
statement in the plaint is taken to be true, the liability to
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
make payment by the defendants was within 30 days from
the date of invoices raised by the plaintiff.
10. He then refers to the date December 19, 2015 mentioned in
paragraph 10 of the plaint where the plaintiff has pleaded
that a sum of Rs.10,24,680/- was due and payable by the
defendants to the plaintiff on account of the goods sold and
delivered as on December 19, 2015.
11. Learned Advocate for the defendant no.2/applicant submits
that even if the said 30 days period is calculated then also the
payment becomes due sometime in January 2016 whereas
the instant suit has been filed in 2021 much beyond the
period of limitation. He further submits that according to the
plaint case, the supply has commenced in 2014 and the
goods were supplied in between March 2014 to December
2015 and the invoices were raised contemporaneously.
Therefore, in 2021 the plaintiff has filed the suit which is ex
facie barred by limitation.
12. Referring to the statement made in paragraph 11 to the
plaint, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that period
of limitation has been calculated by the plaintiff from the
dishonour of cheque dated July 27, 2020, which according to
the learned Advocate for the applicant is far beyond the period
of limitation since the goods were supplied during the period
2014 and 2015. Beyond the period of limitation even if an
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
admission and/or acknowledgement of dues comes allegedly
from the defendants, the same cannot be considered for the
purpose of enlargement of period of limitation.
13. In the light of the above, learned Advocate for the plaintiff
prays for rejection of plaint summarily.
14. Mr. Subhasish Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the
plaintiff submits that at the threshold, he denies that the
plaint and/or claims of the plaintiff is barred by law of
limitation.
DECISION:
15. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the materials on record, this Court at the
threshold, reiterates the settled principles of law while
adjudicating the application for rejection of plaint, the
statement made in the plaint has to be taken as true, correct
and sacrosanct.
16. When point of limitation has been taken up as the point of
demurer in a suit at the threshold, by way of summary
application, meaningful reading of plaint must, ex facie, show
that the suit is barred by limitation.
17. Paragraphs 10 and 11 on which much reliance has been
placed by the defendant are quoted below:-
"10. However, the business with the defendants
dwindled over a period of time and the said
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
defendants also started delaying in making timely
payments in respect of the supplies already
effected by the plaintiff and after adjustment of all
amounts made by the defendants from time to
time, a sum of Rs.10,24,680/- (Rupees ten lakhs
twenty four thousand six hundred eighty only) was
due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff
on account of such goods sold and delivered as on
19th December, 2015. The plaintiff has repeatedly
requested the defendant to pay the said sum along
with accrued interest.
11. In acknowledgement of its liability the
Defendant No. 1 had tendered a cheque bearing
no. 022542 dated 27th July, 2020 drawn on State
Bank of India, Nager Bazar Branch Kolkata for a
sum of Rs.10,24,680/- in discharged of its
obligation. Therefore, the outstanding dues of the
defendants liable to be paid to the Plaintiff is
clearly admitted."
18. On a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole and the said
two paragraphs quoted above, it appears to this Court that,
statement made in the plaint would show that the defendants
have made part payment from time to time and after giving an
adjustment thereto, the plaintiff has made its claim in the
plaint, which according to the plaintiff was due and payable
by the defendants. The goods might have been delivered, as
contended in the plaint during 2014 and 2015 but the plaint
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
does not show that when the last part payment has been
made.
19. The plaint further shows that the plaintiff pleaded that a
cheque for sum of Rs.10,24,680/- issued by the defendants
dated July 27, 2020 had been dishonoured.
20. Though such submission has been denied on behalf of the
defendant No. 2/applicant but in any event, the defence of the
defendant No. 2 would appear from the written statement,
which has already been filed.
21. Be that as it may, on a meaningful reading of the statements
from the plaint, in the light of the plea taken by the defendant
No. 2 in its application for rejection of plaint, it appears to this
Court that, the issue of limitation in this case is definitely not,
ex facie, clear from the plaint and is a mixed question of law of
facts, which cannot be decided summarily, at this stage, in an
application for rejection of plaint.
22. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the defence taken by the defendant No. 2 on the
score of limitation, neither this Court has expressed any
opinion on the merits of the same.
23. The point shall remain open for the defendants to take at the
time of trial, if the suit travels up to the stage of trial.
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
24. In view of foregoing discussions and reasons, this application
being IA No. GA/2/2021 stands dismissed, without any
orders as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
Sbghosh
IA No. GA-COM/2/2021
[OLD NO. CS/66/2021]
In CS-COM/257/2024
A.R., J.
