SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. versus THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 05-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2514 of 2020)
JUNE 05, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, INDIRA BANERJEE
AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.11(d) – Limitation
Act, 1963 – Art.113 – The appellant filed suit on 23.02.2005 for a
decree for rendition of true and correct accounts in respect of the
interest/commission charged and deducted by the respondent-Bank
– The plaint was rejected by the Trial Court u/Or.7, r.11(d) of CPC
on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation as it was filed
beyond the period of three years prescribed u/Art.113 of the
Limitation Act – It held that right to sue accrued in favour of plaintiff
in October, 2000 and plaintiff could have filed the present suit till
October, 2003 as the excessive charging by the Bank was till October,
2000 – The First Appellate Court and the High Court affirmed the
decision of the Trial Court – On appeal, held: The appellant noticed
the discrepancy in July, 2000 and immediately took the matter with
officials of the Bank – The Bank wrote on 09.07.2001 that
appellant’s representation was being examined – Thereafter, a letter
was received on 08.05.2002 from bank informing appellant that
the cheques were purchased at the prevailing rates and another
letter was received on 19.02.2002 from bank informing appellant
that all actions taken by the bank were as per rules and therefore,
the appellant need not pursue the matter any further – The appellant
had sent legal notice on 28.11.2003 and 07.01.2005 and then finally
proceeded to file suit on 23.02.2005 – The Article 113 uses the
expression ‘when the right to sue accrues’ and not ‘when the right
to sue “first” accrues’ – Reckoning these dates, the plaint filed on
23.02.2005 was within limitation – Resultantly, the question of
rejecting plaint u/Or.7, r.11 of CPC does not arise and the decisions
of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court
cannot be sustained.
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 538
538
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well established position that the cause of
action for filing a suit would consist of bundle of facts. Further,
the factum of suit being barred by limitation, ordinarily, would be
a mixed question of fact and law. Even for that reason, invoking
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is ruled out. In the present case,
the assertion in the plaint is that the appellant verily believed
that its claim was being processed by the Regional Office and the
Regional Office would be taking appropriate decision at the
earliest. That belief was shaken after receipt of letter from the
Senior Manager of the Bank, dated 8.5.2002 followed by another
letter dated 19.9.2002 to the effect that the action taken by the
Bank was in accordance with the rules and the appellant need
not correspond with the Bank in that regard any further. This
firm response from the respondent-Bank could trigger the right
of the appellant to sue the respondent-Bank. Moreover, the fact
that the appellant had eventually sent a legal notice on 28.11.2003
and again on 7.1.2005 and then filed the suit on 23.2.2005, is also
invoked as giving rise to cause of action. Whether this plea taken
by the appellant is genuine and legitimate, would be a mixed
question of fact and law, depending on the response of the
respondents. [Para 13][556-F-H; 557-A]
2. Reverting to the argument that exchange of letters or
correspondence between the parties cannot be the basis to extend
the period of limitation, in opinion of this Court, for the view
taken by us hitherto, the same need not be dilated further.
Inasmuch as, having noticed from the averments in the plaint
that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter
from the Senior Manager, dated 8.5.2002, and in particular letter
dated 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by the respondents
vide Advocate’s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal
notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on
the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005, the plaint filed in February,
2005 would be well within limitation. Considering the former
events of firm response by the respondents on 8.5.2002 and in
particular, 19.9.2002, the correspondence ensued thereafter
including the two legal notices sent by the appellant, even if
disregarded, the plaint/suit filed on 23.2.2005 would be within
limitation in terms of Article 113. [Para 

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