Court Dismisses Review Petitions, Finds Suit Time-Barred. Petitioner Not Entitled to Limitation Act Benefits.

The Court dismissed Review Petition (C) Nos. 786-787 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 789 of 2019, and Review Petition (C) No. 788 of 2019, finding no merit in the Petitioners' arguments. The suit by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was time-barred, and the Petitioner was not entitled to benefits under Sections 14 and 19 of the Limitation Act or retroactive application of the Act, 1993. The appeal against the High Court's review judgment was deemed not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation.
2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.
4. Whether the Act, 1993 is retroactive and applicable to the outstanding amount at the time of its commencement.
5. Maintainability of Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 against the review judgment of the High Court dated 19.03.2013.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation:
The primary issue was whether the suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation. The Court concluded that the suit was indeed barred by time. The last supply was completed on 04.10.1993, and thus, the amount became due on 04.11.1993. The period of three years started running from 04.11.1993, making the suit filed on 10.01.1997 beyond the limitation period. The Petitioner argued that the last payment made on 05.03.1994 should start a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Court found that there was no specific pleading in the plaint to claim the benefit of Section 19, and thus, the suit was barred by limitation.

2. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:
The Petitioner contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of the time during which a previous proceeding was being prosecuted with due diligence. However, the Court rejected this claim, noting that the writ petition was filed by the Assam Conductors Manufacturers Association, a different entity from the Petitioner. The Court also observed that the writ petition was dismissed on 28.08.1997, after the suit was filed on 10.01.1997, and a writ appeal was subsequently filed by the Association, further detracting from the conditions required for extending the benefit of Section 14.

3. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act:
The Court examined whether the Petitioner could claim a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which allows for a new limitation period to begin if a payment on account of a debt is made before the expiration of the prescribed period. The Court found that there was no specific pleading in the plaint to claim the benefit of Section 19, and thus, the Petitioner was not entitled to this benefit. The Court emphasized that for claiming exemption under Section 19, there must be specific pleading and proof, which were absent in this case.

4. Whether the Act, 1993 is retroactive and applicable to the outstanding amount at the time of its commencement:
The Petitioner argued that the Act, 1993, which provides for interest on delayed payments to small scale industries, is retroactive and should apply to the outstanding amount at the time of its commencement. The Court had already considered and rejected this argument in its judgment dated 23.01.2019, holding that the Act, 1993, did not apply retroactively to the outstanding amount. The Court reiterated that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to reargue questions already decided.

5. Maintainability of Civil Appeal No. 8445 of 2016 against the review judgment of the High Court dated 19.03.2013:
The Petitioner contended that the appeal against the review judgment of the High Court was maintainable. The Court had specifically considered the maintainability of the appeal in its judgment dated 23.01.2019 and found it to be not maintainable. The review judgment did not grant interest under the Act, 1993, and the High Court did not interfere with the earlier finding that the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit under the Act, 1993. Thus, the Court found no ground to review its decision on the maintainability of the appeal.

Conclusion:
Review Petition (C) Nos. 786-787 of 2019, Review Petition (C) No. 789 of 2019, and Review Petition (C) No. 788 of 2019 were dismissed, with the Court finding no merit in the arguments presented by the Petitioners. The suit filed by M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. was barred by limitation, and the Petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of Sections 14 and 19 of the Limitation Act or the retroactive application of the Act, 1993. The appeal against the review judgment of the High Court was found to be not maintainable.

---