YAJUR COMMODITIES LTD Vs. SURESH ASRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of I.A. 13423/2023 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, defendant seeks rejection of plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Plaintiff, on the other hand, vide its I.A. 5638/2023 under Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act seeks exclusion of 2292 days spent in pursuing its suit before Bombay High Court, a period of 27 days spent in seeking legal opinion in the matter and in instituting and pursuing mandatory pre-litigation mediation under the Commercial Court Act and a further period of 4 days in preparing and filing the present suit in this court after the mediation proceedings was closed as failed. Considering that both the applications involve issue of limitation in filing of the present plaint, the applications are taken up for consideration together.

(2.) Briefly, the plaintiff claims itself to be a trading company engaged in the business of sourcing and procurement of minerals and commodities as well as supply of coal products. Plaintiff claims that on defendant's request, it supplied coal to the defendant from time to time. The defendant had placed a purchase order dtd. 24/3/2012 for supply of 10,000 MT of coal for a sum of Rs.3,64,00,000.00 and in this regard, the parties entered into a High Sea Sale Agreement dtd. 3/4/2012. The consignment was shipped vide two bills of lading, both dtd. 27/3/2012. Plaintiff raised High Sea Sale Invoice dtd. 3/4/2012 for Rs.3,19,00,000.00. The defendant handed over a cheque dtd. 11/3/2012 for Rs.1,62,79,200.00, as security. On defendant's assurance of clearance of the outstanding dues at the earliest, the security cheque was not presented for encashment.

(3.) Plaintiff further claims that the defendant vide email dtd. 20/9/2012 acknowledged its liability to pay a sum of Rs.2,53,10,347.00. The defendant alongwith the said email had also attached a copy of its account ledger and debit notes showing the said amount to be payable. Reminder emails were sent on 15/10/2012 and 24/12/2012 followed by a letter dtd. 27/4/2013. Defendant vide letter dtd. 8/5/2013 denied the same and demanded statement of accounts, which were provided by the plaintiff. Again, plaintiff reiterated the demand vide letter dtd. 13/8/2013 and email dtd. 1/10/2013.