Empire Home Appliances Private Limited v. M/S Vashitha Electronics

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 03, 2016 "gsr" (corrected & released on 16th June, 2016)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd May, 2016 + RFA 208/2016 EMPIRE HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Varma & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs. Versus M/S SURAJ ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through: None. AND + RFA 209/2016 EMPIRE HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LTD. .... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Varma & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs. Versus M/S FRIENDS HOME MAKERS TRADING COMPANY ..... Respondent Through: None. AND + RFA 210/2016 EMPIRE HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Varma & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs. Versus M/S BIDJEY & CO. ..... Respondent Through: None. AND + RFA 211/2016 EMPIRE HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Varma & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs. Versus M/S R R & COMPANY ..... Respondent Through: None. AND + RFA 212/2016 EMPIRE HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Varma & Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advs. Versus M/S VASHITHA ELECTRONICS ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. All the appeals impugn the identical orders of dismissal in limine, i.e. without even issuing the summons to the respondents / defendants, of suits filed by the appellant for recovery of money, as barred by time. 2. Considering that the orders were passed without hearing the respondents, need is not felt to issue notice of the appeals to the respondents to go into the correctness of such orders. If the appeals succeed and the suits remanded, upon service of summons, the respondents shall have liberty to, in their respective written statement, take all pleas available to them including of the suit claim being barred by time and this order will not come in the way of their taking the said pleas. 3. In this view of the matter, the counsel for the appellant has been finally heard. 4. The appeals are listed subject to objection raised by the Registry as to the court fees paid. According to the Registry, court fees is payable also on interest accrued after the date of institution of the suit. 5. There is no merit in the said objection which is overruled. 6. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant in each of the appeals / suits were its distributors to whom goods were supplied on credit more than three years prior to the institution of the suit and the suits were filed for recovery of the price due of the said goods. It was further the case of the appellant / plaintiff that the respondent / defendant in each of the suits had, within the period of three years of the date when the price of goods was due, issued cheques for part of the amount due and the suits were filed within three years of the date of dishonour of the said cheques though beyond three years from the date of the cheque in each of the cases. 7. The learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), in the impugned order in each of the suits, though held that a suit on a cheque can be filed within three years of the date of return of the cheque as dishonoured but proceeded to hold that since in the present case the cheques were in acknowledgement of past liability, it was the date of the cheque and not the date of dishonour of the cheque which was relevant and since the suits had been instituted beyond three years from the date of the cheques also, they were beyond time. 8. The counsel for the appellant relies on Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Rohini Strips Ltd. MANU/DE/9786/2007 to contend that the suit on a cheque can be instituted within three years of the date of dishonour and on Jhang Biradari Housing Residents Society Vs. Bharat Bhushan Sachdeva 222(2015) DLT 578 to contend that a right to sue is not to be confused with cause of action and contends that though a right to sue may accrue within three years of the date of the cheque, a cause of action for suing would accrue from the date of dishonour of the cheque. It is further his contention that once the cheque had been issued, the suits were maintainable