Delhi High Court
M/S Kumar Food Industries Ltd. vs The Central Bank Of India And Anr. on 24 May, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 149/2017
% 24th May, 2017
M/S KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K.Jain, Adv.
versus
THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 20080/2017 (delay of 121 days in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 121 days in re-
filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.
CM No.20079/2017 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No. 149/2017
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff
impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the Trial
Court dated 6.1.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated 23.7.2016; by
which the courts below have rejected the suit plaint filed by the
appellant/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on account of the suit
being barred by time.
2. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff
pleading that the appellant/plaintiff was enjoying cheque/draft
discounting facility to the extent of Rs.25 lacs from the respondent
no.1/defendant no.1 and that it was found that the respondent
no.1/defendant no.1 had been illegally charging commission/interest at
Rs.4 per thousand in violation of an understanding. The charges which
have been said to have been illegally debited are in an account which
was operative till December 1999 i.e the charges were debited in the
account till December 1999. The subject suit was filed in February
2005.
3. The courts below have held, and rightly so, that Article
113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies and which is a residuary
Article with respect to the filing of suits. As per Article 113 of the
Limitation Act the period of three years begins when the right to sue
accrues. In the present case, the right to sue had accrued when the
alleged illegal charges were debited in the account of the
appellant/plaintiff with respect to the cheque/draft discounting facility
and which account with respect to debit of illegal charges was operated
till December 1999. Therefore, though the actual cause of action with
respect to different charges accrued prior to December 1999, the cause
of action at the very last arose in December 1999 whereafter there are
no alleged illegally debited charges as claimed by the
appellant/plaintiff. Suit therefore had to be filed by within three years
from December 1999 i.e at best till December 2002. But the suit has
however been filed in February 2005 i.e well beyond the period of
three years after the last charge was debited in the account in
December 1999. The suit plaint was therefore rightly rejected by the
courts below as being barred by time.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argues that the
relationship between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.1/bank
was of principal and agent, however, I fail to understand as to how if a
cheque discounting facility is given to a customer there arises a
relationship of principal and agent between the bank and its customer.
Relationship between the bank and customer is as between a person who
gives a loan and a person who takes a loan i.e creditor and debtor.
5. No substantial questions of law arises. Dismissed.
MAY 24, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
