PLANET ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AMBIENCE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Order dtd. 28/4/2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Courts - 02, South District, Saket Court, in CS DJ 862/2018. Vide the impugned Order, the learned District Judge has dismissed the Suit on the ground that the Suit is barred by limitation.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, leading to the present Appeal, are as under:

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that 11 invoices were raised by the Appellant between July 2014 to November 2014 for providing advertisement services to the Respondent. He states that payments with respect to those invoices were not made by the Respondents despite having given assurances. He states that even after the Appellant filed a Petition for winding up the Respondent Company, the Respondents kept giving assurances to the Appellant that the amount would be paid and, therefore, the period of limitation would extend beyond the dates of invoices. The Appellant on 20/8/2015 tendered a legal notice calling upon the Respondent to pay the pending dues. The Respondent for the first time denied its dues towards the Appellant vide their reply dtd. 5/9/2015 to the legal notice. This reply was received by the Appellant on 12/9/2015. He states that applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act to the facts of the present case, the period of limitation will start from the date of denial, i.e. from 12/9/2015, and it is from that date the Appellant's right to sue first accrued. He places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Geo Miller & Co Pvt. Ltd. v Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., 2019:INSC:989 : (2020) 14 SCC 643. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further states that the Appellant approached this Court bona fide by filing a petition for winding up the company instead of filing a civil suit and, therefore, the time spent in the winding up petition right from its filing till its disposal must be excluded from the period of limitation and benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act should be given to the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant places reliance on several judgments of the various High Courts to substantiate this contention. He further states that the Respondents/Defendants deposited TDS on the amount due and payable to the Appellant/Plaintiff and the same amounts to acknowledgment of debt and the same would extend the period of limitation from the date of deposit of the TDS under Sec. 19 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel for the Appellant places reliance on the Judgment of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Samyak Projects (P) Ltd. v Ansal Housing Ltd., to support his contention.