inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Delhi High Court – Orders
Rimjhim Stainless Limited vs Mukesh Singhal on 4 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 458/2025, CM APPL. 30939/2025 (stay)
RIMJHIM STAINLESS LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Counsel for Appellant (appearance
not given)
versus
MUKESH SINGHAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Relan Adv & Mr. Shourya
Relan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 04.02.2026
1. First Regular Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
„CPC‘) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, to challenge the Impugned
Judgment/Order dated 01.03.2025 whereby the Learned District Judge-03
Delhi, has Decreed the Suit for Recovery in the sum of Rs.6,91,000/- along
with the Pendente Lite and Future Interest @ 6% p.a., in favour of the
Respondent/Plaintiff.
2. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff/Respondent, who is the Sole
Proprietor of Arpit Enterprises, was dealing in Petroleum Products. On
being approached by the Appellant/Defendant, the Plaintiff made the
supplies between 07.07.2012 to 26.07.2012, which are as under:
Date Invoice No. Amount (in Rs.)
07.07.2012 83 6,30,000/-
26.07.2012 111 7,26,250/-
26.07.2012 112 7,07,640/-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
Last Payment on 2-2-13 6,90,000/-
3. The Defendant made part payments towards the goods supplied. The
Plaintiff maintained a Ledger Account of the Defendant Company as per
which, the amount of Rs. 6,90,000/- was remitted by the Defendant on
02.02.2013, on account of the various supplies. After giving due credit for
the payment received from the Defendant and other Credit Notes, there
remained an outstanding amount of Rs. 6,91,000/-, which was not paid by
the Defendant.
4. The Suit for Recovery of Rs. 6,91,000/- along with the interest @
24% p.a. amounting to Rs. 6,53,218.48/- adding upto Rs. 13,44,320.48/- was
filed by the Plaintiff with future and Pendente Lite interest @ 24% p.a.
5. The Suit was contested by the Defendant/Appellant, who in his
Written Statement took the Preliminary Objection that the Suit was liable
to be dismissed for the Plaintiff being guilty of supreso veri, as material
facts had been concealed from the Court. The goods supplied by the
Plaintiff, were of very poor quality and of no use.
6. The Defendant communicated to the Plaintiff a number of times about
the material being of inferior quality and to lift the same from the factory of
the Defendant, but to no avail. Thereafter, the Defendant was constrained to
write Letters dated 02.02.2013 and 10.04.2013, thereby making a request to
the Plaintiff, to lift the material from the factory. The Plaintiff was also
intimated about the leakage, pilferage of material and that the same shall be
borne by the Plaintiff himself and the Defendant would have no concern
with the same. It was further intimated that the storage charges which were
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
being incurred by the Defendant for the storage of such inferior quality
material, shall also be the responsibility of the Plaintiff.
7. Despite repeated assurances by the Plaintiff that they would lift the
material and settle the account, nothing was done; instead, the present Suit
was filed. It was further asserted that the Suit was barred by Limitation. As
per the documents filed by the Plaintiff, the goods were last supplied on
26.07.2012, while the Suit has been filed in March, 2016, which is beyond
the period of Limitation.
8. It was further asserted that there was no cause of action as the goods
were supplied to the Defendant in the year 2012, and the alleged cause of
action, if any, arose, till the year 2015 and the Plaintiff has wrongly claimed
that the cause of action arose on 10.12.2014 i.e. the date of sending of the
Legal Notice. The same defence of the goods supplied being of inferior
quality, was reiterated. It was stated that the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. The Plaintiff in the Replication, reiterated the assertions made in the
Plaint.
10. The Issues were framed on 16.01.2017, as under:
" (1) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP.
(2) Whether the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the
defendant were defective? If so, its effect? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any
amount from the defendant? If so, what amount
and for what period? OPP."
11. The Plaintiff, Mukesh examined himself as PW-1 and produced the
requisite documents. The Defendant No. 1, Mr. Sudhir Awasthi appeared as
DW-1 and was partly Cross-Examined, but thereafter, failed to get his
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
Cross-Examination completed. The Evidence of the Defendant, was closed
on 27.05.2024.
12. The Learned District Judge considered the rival contentions, and
Decreed the Suit of the Plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 6,91,000/- along with
the Pendente Lite and Future Interest @ 6% p.a.
13. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 01.03.2025, the present Appeal has
been filed.
14. The grounds of challenge are that the goods were supplied to the
Appellant/Defendant on 26.07.2012 vide two Invoices bearing No. 111 and
112, for the sum of Rs. 7,26,250/- and Rs. 7,07,640/- respectively. The Suit
could have been filed on or before 25.07.2015 but was filed on 30.01.2016
and was barred by Limitation. It was claimed that the payments were
being made as per Invoice. The Plaintiff had admitted in his Cross-
Examination that the payment for one Tanker of oil, was received from the
Defendant, after six months of supply of oil.
15. The Learned Trial Court fell in error in calculating the Limitation in
terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when it is Article 14 of the
Limitation Act, which is applicable. It is claimed that as per the Invoices,
Interest @ 24% p.a. was chargeable on late payment, after due date.
However, there is nothing on record to show what was the due date. The
interest @ 24% p.a. as calculated by the Plaintiff was therefore, not tenable.
16. It is further asserted that the goods were of poor quality and of no use
to the Defendant. This fact was duly communicated to the Plaintiff, a
number of times. The Testimony of PW-1 who admitted this in his Cross-
Examination dated 05.12.2018, has not been appreciated. It is, therefore,
submitted that the Impugned Judgment be set-aside.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
17. Learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent, however, has
seriously challenged the contentions made by the Appellant. It is submitted
that the Learned Trial Court has, in detail, considered the two Invoices and
the payments made against them on 02.02.2013, to conclude that the
payment made was not in respect of one Invoice, but there was some excess
amount, which was to be adjusted towards the second Invoice.
18. Furthermore, the Learned Trial Court in detail has considered the
aspect of Limitation and observed that by virtue of Section 19 Limitation
Act, the period of Limitation stood extended in favour of the Plaintiff from
02.12.2013, and the Suit was within Limitation.
19. It is further argued that the Cross-Examination of the Defendant No.
1, was never concluded and his Testimony, cannot be read in Evidence.
There is no Evidence led to prove that the goods supplied to the Defendant,
were defective.
20. It is, therefore, submitted that the Suit has been rightly Decreed and
the present Appeal is without merits.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
21. It is an admitted case that Plaintiff/Respondent and the Appellant
were having business dealings. They had entered into a contract whereby
three Tankers of oil, were supplied to the Appellant against three Invoices.
In respect of one Invoice, the payment was duly made and it was not in
dispute. The dispute arose in respect of two Invoices No. 111 and 112.
22. The basic contention of the Appellant is that the goods supplied were
of substandard quality. Admittedly, the Respondent had supplied three
Tankers, out of which one Tanker was accepted. The Dispute arose in
respect of two Tankers which the Appellant claimed to be of sub-standard
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
quality. The Appellant wrote a Letter dated 02.02.2013 Ex. DW-1/B
intimating the Respondent to take back one Tanker and issue the Debit Note.
This Letter was followed by another Letter dated 10.04.2013 Ex. DW-1/C,
wherein again a reference was made to the earlier Letter dated 02.02.2013
and it was stated that the material be lifted without further delay or they
would not be responsible for leakage, pilferage and/or loss of material in any
way whatsoever.
23. The first aspect, which emerges from these two Letters, is that there
was admittedly delivery of oil Tankers vis-a-vis Bills No. 111 and 112. It is
the claim of the Defendant that the goods supplied against the two Bills No.
111 and 112, both dated 26.07.2012, were of very poor quality. However,
in the Letter itself, it is reflected that the Defendant agreed to pay the cost of
one oil Tanker and requested that the second Tanker be taken back and a
Debit Note be issued. However, if the goods were of such poor quality, there
is no explanation as to why even one Tanker with such poor quality had
been accepted, while the other was intended to be returned back.
24. Further, it is the defence of the Appellant/Defendant that the goods
were of poor quality. The onus to prove this was on the Appellant, but there
is no Evidence whatsoever led by the Defendant that indeed, the goods
supplied were of poor quality. To prove this alleged defence, DW-1 Sudhir
Awasthi was examined, but he failed to appear for completion of his Cross-
Examination, for which there is no explanation.
25. So being the case, it cannot be said that the Defendant/Appellant has
been able to prove the alleged poor quality of the goods supplied. Mere bald
assertion is not sufficient to discharge the onus or to establish that the goods
were liable to be repudiated or that the Appellant was not liable to make
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
payment against the Tanker of oil that had indeed being supplied to the
Defendant. The defence of the goods being of poor quality or of their
repudiation, has been rightly rejected by the Learned District Judge.
26. The second Ground of Challenge is that the Suit was barred by
Limitation. It may be noted at the outset, that when the debt is in existence
and legally liable to be paid, the question of it being time barred does not
arise. The intention of Parliament to amend the Code and to insert a
provision about the applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to the Code is only
to avoid state claims but definitely not claims which are alive. The law of
limitation is essentially a law of equity to balance the stale claims against the
genuine claims of the plaintiff. The party must not be non-suited on
technical grounds, unless his recalcitrant conduct disqualifies him from any
relief.
27. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the case of N.
Balakrishnan vs. M.A. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, inter alia,
observed as under:
“the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of
the parties but are meant to see that the parties do not resort to
dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly and the law of
limitation fixes a life span for legal injury suffered and that it is
enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis
litum i.e. it is for the general welfare that a period to be put to
litigation and this is not meant to destroy the rights of the
parties, but they are meant to see that the party do not resort to
dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly because the idea
is that every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed
period of time.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
28. The facts of the case, may thus be considered. According to the
Appellant, the goods were supplied vide Invoices dated 07.07.2012
according to which the payment had to be paid immediately. Therefore, the
Suit could have been filed till 06.07.2015. However, the Suit has been filed
on 01.02.2016, i.e. beyond the period of 03 years and is, therefore, barred by
Limitation.
29. The Respondent/Plaintiff produced the Ledger Account Ex.PW1/4
according to which there was a balance amount of Rs. 13,81,102/- due from
the Appellant as on 02.02.2013. Out of this amount, the Defendant had paid
a sum of Rs.6,90,000/-, on 02.02.2013.
30. The Learned District Judge had also referred to the Ledger Accounts
of the Plaintiff, to observe that the last payment was made by the Defendant
on 02.02.2013. By virtue of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, the period of
Limitation stood extended till 02.02.2013.
31. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently contended
that since it was an Open, Current and Mutual Account, Article 14 of
Schedule II would be applicable, which provides that the Limitation would
be three years from the date of delivery of the goods.
32. The Contention of the Appellant that as per the Agreement, the
amount against the Invoice was to be paid on the same day, is not tenable.
The Letter dated 02.02.2013 on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant, itself
states that the Furnace Oil had been supplied through Bill No. 111 and Bill
No. 112 dated 26.07.2012. It further claimed that because of poor quality
and the goods being in near useless condition, the payment would be made
for one Tanker while Debit Note be issued for another one. Therefore, the
payment itself had been acknowledged and admittedly made against one
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
Tanker on 02.02.2013. Therefore, once there was an acknowledgment of the
due amounts and its payment made on 02.02.2013, it is not Article 14 but
Section 19 of Limitation Act which would become applicable and has been
rightly relied upon by the Learned Trial Court.
33. Furthermore, the Learned Trial Court in detail had considered that the
two Invoices dated 26.07.2023 were in the sum of Rs. 7,26,250/- and Rs.
7,07,640/- respectively. The discount was given to the tune of Rs. 19,422/-
and Rs. 33,366/- on the Sales. It was not clear which amount of discount was
given against which Invoice. However, even if it is accepted that the entire
payment of Rs. 6,90,000/- was made on 02.02.2013, it does not calculate
against one Invoice.
34. It is a fact that this amount of Rs. 6,90,000/- was towards the second
Invoice, but there was some excess of less amount which still remained due.
Such partial payment against the Impugned Invoices, would only make the
Section 19 Limitation Act, applicable.
35. In Ambica Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, (1964) 54 ITR 167 (Guj.), it was further
held that a debt shown in a balance-sheet of a Company amounts to an
acknowledgment for the purpose of section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908
and in order to be so, the balance-sheet in which such acknowledgment is
made need not be addressed to the creditors.
36. The Learned District Judge has rightly calculated the period of
Limitation in terms of Section 19 Limitation Act and has rightly held that
the Suit was well within the period of Limitation.
37. The limitation may also be considered in the context of Section 18
Limitation Act, which reads as under:
“18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing. —
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period
for a suit or application in respect of any property or
right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such
property or right has been made in writing signed by the
party against whom such property or right is claimed, or
by any person through whom he derives his title or
liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed
from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is
undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it
was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its
contents shall not be received.
Explanation.–
For the purposes of this section,–
(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it
omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right,
or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance
or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a
refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is
coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a
person other than a person entitled to the property or
right;
(b) the word “signed” means signed either
personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf;
and
(c) an application for the execution of a decree or
order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect
of any property or right.”
38. The purpose of Limitation, as it is discussed above, is only to ensure
that the defendants are not harassed by stale claims. The statute therefore,
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
specifically envisaged the provision of acknowledgement of debt. Once debt
is acknowledged, it cannot be considered as a stale claim as it is well within
the knowledge of the borrower and hence, Limitation would be further
extended.
39. In order for Section 18 to be applicable, following conditions are
required to be established:
(i) Must be in writing;
(ii) Must be signed by the party against whom the right is
claimed (or authorized agent);
(iii) Must be made before the expiry of the limitation period;
and
(iv) Must clearly acknowledge a subsisting liability.
40. In reference to the Ledger Accounts, it was observed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Mahabir Cold Storage vs. CIT, (1991)56 Taxman
42F/188 ITR 91 (SC), that the entries in the books of account of the
Appellant would amount to an acknowledgment of the liability within the
meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and extend the period of
Limitation for the discharge of the Liability as Debt.
41. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. Commercial Electric Works, [1997] 67
DLT 387 a single judge of the Delhi High Court observed that it was well-
settled that a balance-sheet of a Company, where the defendants had shown
a particular amount as due to the plaintiff, would constitute an
acknowledgment within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act.
42. In Rishi Pal Gupta vs. S.J. Knitting and Finishing Mills (P.)
Ltd., [1998] 73 DLT 593, the same view was taken. In S.C. Gupta v. Allied
Beverages Co. (P.) Ltd. (decided on April 30, 2007), it was held that the
acknowledgment made by a Company in its balance-sheet had the effect of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
extending the period of Limitation for the purposes of section 18 of the
Limitation Act.
43. The Entries in the Ledger Account Ex.PW1/4., therefore, amount to
acknowledgement, in terms of Section 18 Limitation Act, and the Suit has
been filed within Limitation.
44. This issue of Limitation may also be considered in reference to the
Letter dated 02.02.2013 wherein it admits and acknowledges that the
payment against both the Invoices dated 26.07.2012, had not been made.
While it agreed to make payment against one Invoice, but denied to make
payment against the second Invoice on a Ground of the Goods being of
“near useless condition”.
45. Even if the contention of the Appellant is accepted that the date of
delivery of the two Tankers, was the date for calculation of Limitation, the
Letters dated 02.02.2013 followed by Letter dated 10.04.2013 Ex. DW-1/C,
acknowledged the delivery and the liability to pay against the two Tankers
but claimed the quality of goods to be sub-standard and refused the payment
for one Tanker. These Letters clearly amount to acknowledgment of
outstanding payment against two Tankers. The refusal to pay for one tanker,
is covered by explanation to Section 18 Limitation Act, as observed in the
recent Judgement of Supreme Court of M/S. Airen And Associates vs. M/S.
Sanmar Engineering Services Limited, Civil Appeal NO. 654/2015, decided
on 24th July, 2025, that “in terms of the afore stated provision, there must be
an „acknowledgment of liability in respect of the Property or Right in
question‟ and even if such an acknowledgment is accompanied by refusal
to pay, it would mean that the period of Limitation would have to be
computed from the time when such acknowledgment is signed”.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
46. The Limitation, therefore, commences from the date of
acknowledgement/payment i.e. 02.02.2013, implying that the Suit could
have been filed till 01.02.2016.
47. The present Suit has been filed on 30.01.2016 and is, therefore, well
within the Limitation.
48. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
Pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2026/RS
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:36:11
