M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. versus ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS. 786787 OF 2019 IN

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.
v.
ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Review Petition (C) Nos. 786–787 of 2019
In
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8442–8443 of 2016)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order 47 r. 1 – Review petition – Error apparent on record
– On facts, review petition on the ground that there is an apparent
error in the judgment by this Court holding that suit was barred
by time – Petitioner’s case that in money suit pertaining to interest
on principal amount received by the petitioner, the last supply was
completed on 04.10.93 but the last payment was made on
05.03.1994, a fresh period of limitation would begin from
05.03.1994 on the basis of s. 19 of the Limitation Act – Held:
Exemption provided u/ss. 4 to 20 of the Limitation Act, are based
on certain facts and events – On facts, perusal of the plaint
indicates that there is no pleading as to exception of limitation by
running any fresh period of limitation as per s. 19 – There was no
occasion for defendants to raise any reply in reference to s. 19 –
Also, proviso to Order 7 r. 6 cannot come to the rescue of the
plaintiff since the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the provisions
of the Limitation Act are not applicable since Act, 1993 has
overriding effect – Furthermore, in the paragraph of cause of
action for the suit, the cause of action is not claimed from the date
05.03.1994, which was the date when the last payment was
received by the petitioner – Petitioner in the plaint has clearly not
pleaded for benefit of s. 19 nor has brought necessary facts to
enable the Court to consider the claim under s. 19 – Thus, the
petitioner is not entitled for benefit of s. 19 and there is no error
in the judgment of this Court holding that the suit of the plaintiff
was barred by time – Furthermore, benefit of s. 14 of Limitation
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 252
252
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
253
Act cannot be claimed by the plaintiff since writ petition, which
was filed by the Association was by different entity – Issue of
benefit of s. 14 was specifically considered and rejected by this
Court in its judgment thus, there is no error apparent on the said
ground – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss. 19, 14 – Interest on Delayed
Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act,
1993.
Order 47 r. 1 – Review petitions – Error apparent on record
– On facts, matter pertaining to interest on delayed payment to
small scale industries – Review petition on the ground that there
was error on face of record in observation of this Court – Some
of the supplies made prior to commencement of the 1993 Act–
23.09.1992 and some of the supplies made after 23.09.1992 –
Entitlement of petitioner to the benefit of interest under the 1993
Act – Held: The date of bill for the payment for supply of the
materials by the plaintiffs was 29.09.1992 – This Court in the
judgment rightly held that there was nothing on record to come to
the conclusion that any supply was made after the enforcement of
the Act so as to enable the appellant to claim interest u/s. 3 read
with s. 4 of the 1993 Act, thus, the judgment of the High Court
does not call for interference – Submission that there is error
apparent on the face of record is rejected and the review petition
is dismissed – Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and
Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993.
Order 47 r. 1 – Review petition – Error apparent on record
– Review petition on the ground that this Court dismissed the
appeal as not maintainable which is error apparent on record –
Held: This Court considered the maintainability of appeal and
found against the petitioner, thus, there is no ground to review the
petition.
Order 47 r. 1 – Review petition – Scope of – Held: Scope of
review is limited – Under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have
already been addressed and decided.
Order 7 r. 6 – Grounds of exemption from limitation law –
Applicability of – Held: When suit is instituted after expiration of
period prescribed by law of limitation, the plaint should show the
ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed – However,
M/S SHANTI CONDUCTORS (P) LTD. v. ASSAM
STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law
of limitation on any ground not set out in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.