2019 (5) TMI 1869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r invoices raised under four different work order for four different work sites. The Petition was filed on 29.01.2018. 2. The total amount in default as per the Form-5 for different sites is as under: S. No. Site Outstanding Invoice Amount (in Rs.) Interest @24% (in Rs.) Total 1. Adani 4,35,244/- 5,48,271/- 9,83,515/- 2. Jharkhand 2,50,000/- 3,74,630/- 6,24,630/- 3. Mahul 7,13,619/- 5,97,937/- 13,11,556/- 4. M.P. 19,84,655/- 15,65,715/- 35,50,370/- Total 64,70,071/- 3. The Petitioner has further given the following details regarding the date of default and the date of last payment for each of the sites: S. No. Site Date of First Default Date of Last Payment 1. Adani 02/02/2012 27/04/2012 2. Jharkhand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs Parag Gupta and Associates Civil Appeal No.23988 of 2017 dated 11.10.2018 where it was held that the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under section 7 and 9 of I&B Code since the inception of the I&B Code. The relevant para is reproduced below: "...It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code, Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. "The right to sue", therefore, accrues when a default occurs. If the default has occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es and relate to different work sites. Also, the last payment on which the petitioner is relying upon above is for the M.P. site. The said payment would extend the limitation period, under section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 only for the default under an agreement relating to M.P. site and not the other agreements. Therefore, it is only the claim of Rs.35,50,370/-, for goods provided to M.P. site, which is within limitation and not the entire claim of Rs.64,70,071/- as claimed by the Petitioner in the Petition. 12. From a bare perusal of the above facts, it is clear that the claim of the Petitioner is barred by limitation. The Petitioner has claimed a total amount of Rs.64,70,071/- that includes the claim which is barred by limitation as we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X