Gujarat High Court

Shri Sambhav Prakashchand Sancheti vs Sushma Dye Print on 11 November, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                                          C/CA/4839/2025                      ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4839 of
                                                     2025
                                                      In
                                         R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4065 of 2025
                                                     With
                                         R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4065 of 2025

                                               (F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27599 OF 2025)
                       ==========================================================
                                          SHRI SAMBHAV PRAKASHCHAND SANCHETI
                                                         Versus
                                                 SUSHMA DYE PRINT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
                                SUNITA AGARWAL
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                                                           Date : 11/11/2025

                                                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY) Perused the Office Report dated 10.11.2025 which

categorically records that a Vakalatnama was filed on behalf

of the learned advocate Mr.Nilay H.Patel without the

signatures of the learned advocate and hence it was lying with

the document section under objection. Only after we have

passed the order dated 04.11.2025 asking the office to

ascertain the factum of filing Vakalatnama and submit a

report that the learned advocate had approached the Registry

to remove the defect by signing the Vakalatnama. The

Vakalatnama was then taken on record on 07.11.2025 and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

name of Mr. Nilay H.Patel, learned advocate has been shown

in the cause list appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and

2. The office report is found to the satisfaction of the Court.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :-

There is no serious objection to the delay in filing the

present Appeal. The delay has been explained to the

satisfaction of the Court. The Delay Condonation Application

is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

The Office shall allot the regular number to the appeal,

forthwith.

ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL:

1. The present appellant is the original plaintiff in

Commercial Civil Suit No. 179 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to

as "the Suit"), which was instituted under the provisions of

Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, before the learned Commercial Court at Ahmedabad.

The Suit was filed against the defendants (respondents

herein) seeking recovery of a sum of ₹3,46,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 24% per annum, together with costs of

the proceedings. The designation of the parties as in the

original suit has been retained in narrating the facts of the

present appeal for the sake of clarity.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

2. The brief foundational facts giving rise to the present

appeal, in essence, are as follows:-

2.1 The plaintiff, engaged in the wholesale business of

starch and gum under the trade name "Navkar Starch,"

carries on business from the address stated in the cause title.

The defendant No. 2 is the proprietor of defendant No. 1 firm,

which is engaged in the business of textiles. It emerges from

the record that, in the ordinary course of business, the

defendants approached the plaintiff for the supply of starch

powder ("goods") required for their textile manufacturing

activities. Pursuant to their mutual understanding, the

defendants used to place orders for the said goods with the

plaintiff as per their requirements.

2.2 As per the terms of the business arrangement between

the parties, it was agreed that the defendants would make

payment to the plaintiff within seven days from the date of

receipt of the goods. It was further stipulated that in case of

default in making such payment within a period of thirty days,

the plaintiff would be entitled to recover interest over the bill

amount at his discretion.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

2.3 It is an admitted position that defendant No. 2

purchased goods worth ₹3,66,200.20 from the plaintiff.

Against the said liability, the defendants made a part payment

of ₹19,600/- in August 2021, leaving an outstanding balance of

₹3,46,600/-. Upon demand, the defendants assured the

plaintiff that the remaining amount would be cleared within

thirty days. However, despite repeated demands and

reminders, the defendants failed to discharge their

outstanding liability, which led the plaintiff to believe that

such non-payment was deliberate and with mala fide

intention.

2.4 Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated

02.09.2022, demanding payment of the outstanding sum of

₹3,46,600/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum

and legal expenses. The said notice was duly served upon the

defendants on 06.09.2022 but no compliance was recorded in

this regard. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted Commercial

Civil Suit No. 179 of 2023 before the learned Commercial

Judge, Ahmedabad, under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recovery of the said

amount along with interest. In compliance with Section 12A of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff initiated pre-

institution mediation proceedings (Pre-Mediation Case No. 34

of 2023). However, as the defendants failed to appear, a Non-

Starter Report was filed on 13.04.2023.

2.5 Subsequently, the defendants filed an application dated

01.12.2023 seeking leave to defend, which came to be

rejected by the learned Commercial Court vide order dated

26.03.2025. Thereafter, upon hearing the matter, the learned

Commercial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and

decree dated 29.05.2025, holding that the same was barred

by limitation.

3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated

29.05.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Judge, City

Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Commercial Civil Suit

No. 179 of 2023, whereby the learned Trial Court was pleased

to dismiss the Suit on the ground of limitation, the plaintiff

(present appellant) has filed this appeal.

4. Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submitted that the learned Commercial Court had

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

fallen into grave error by misapplying the order dated

10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo

Motu Wirt Petition No.3 of 2020 by denying the appellant, the

benefit as provided in the said order. According to Mr.

Pandya, the entire period between 15.03.2020 and 01.03.2022

ought to have been excluded by the learned Commercial Court

while calculating the applicable period of limitation.

Mr.Pandya further submitted that the instant case would be

squarely covered by the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Arif Azim Company Ltd. Vs.

Aptech Ltd. reported in 2024 INSC 155, which has followed

and explained the applicability of the order dated 10.01.2022.

5. Mr. Nilay Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents is not able to dispute either the dates

relevant to the present appeal nor the applicability of the

aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the learned

Commercial Court had erred in dismissing the suit on the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

ground of limitation. It is an admitted position and recorded

by the Commercial Court that the suit is based on Invoice

No.193 dated 26.07.2019 produced vide Exh.37 which is the

last invoice raised by the plaintiff. In the absence of the order

dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Suo Motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, the limitation for filing

the suit would have expired on 25.07.2022. However, the suit

came to be filed on 29.04.2023, i.e. approximately a period of

nine months from the normal expiry of the limitation.

7. In the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2022, it has been

specifically directed as under :-

"5.1 The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.

5.2 Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

5.3 In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

5.4 It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12Aof the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

8. Relying upon the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Arif Azim Company Ltd. (Supra) has

held as under

"82. Thus, in ordinary circumstances, the limitation period available to the petitioner for raising a claim would have come to an end after an expiry of three years, that is, on 27.03.2021. However, in March 2020, the entire world was taken under the grip of the deadly Covid-19 pandemic bringing everyday life and commercial activity to a complete halt across the globe. Taking cognisance of this unfortunate turn of events, this Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu Civil Writ Petition No. 03/2020 directed the period commencing from 15.03.2020 to be excluded for the purposes of computation of limitation. The said extension of limitation was extended from time to time by this Court in view of the continuing pandemic. As a result, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was finally determined to be excluded for the computation of limitation. It was provided that the balance period of limitation as available on 15.03.2020 would become available from 01.03.2022. Operative part of the order dated 10.01.2022 is extracted hereinbelow:

"5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."

83. The operation and effect of the aforesaid order was considered and explained by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 112 as follows:

"28. As regards the operation and effect of the orders passed by this Court in SMWP No. 3 of 2020, noticeable it is that even though in the initial order dated 23-3- 2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801], this Court provided that the period of limitation in all the proceedings, irrespective of that prescribed under general or special laws, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15-3-2020 but, while concluding the matter on 23-9-2021 [Cognizance for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250 :

2021 SCC OnLine SC 947], this Court specifically provided for exclusion of the period from 15-3-2020 till 2-10-2021. A look at the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that while extension of prescribed period in relation to an appeal or certain applications has been envisaged under Section 5, the exclusion of time has been provided in the provisions like Sections 12 to 15 thereof. When a particular period is to be excluded in relation to any suit or proceeding, essentially the reason is that such a period is accepted by law to be the one not referable to any indolence on the part of the litigant, but being relatable to either the force of circumstances or other requirements of law (like that of mandatory two months' notice for a suit against the Government [Vide Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963.]). The excluded period, as a necessary consequence, results in enlargement of time, over and above the period prescribed."

(emphasis supplied)

84. The effect of the above-referred order of this Court in the facts of the present case is that the balance limitation left on 15.03.2020 would become available w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The balance period of limitation remaining on 15.03.2020 can be calculated by computing the number of days between 15.03.2020 and 27.03.2021, which is the day when the limitation period would have come to an end under ordinary circumstances. The balance period thus comes to 1 year 13 days. This period of 1 year 13 days becomes available to the petitioner from 01.03.2022, thereby meaning that the limitation period available to the petitioner for invoking arbitration proceedings would have come to an end on 13.03.2023."

9. Applying the aforesaid example, it will be seen in the

present case that the balance of the limitation left on

15.03.2020 was almost 2 years and 4 months, therefore,

adding 2 years and 4 months from 01.03.2022 would take the

limitation to approximately July, 2024. In the present case,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4839/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/11/2025

undefined

admittedly the suit came to be registered on 29.04.2023 and

therefore, the suit has to be said to have been filed well within

the limitation.

10. In such view of the matter, the learned Commercial