The Supreme Court has held that a proceeding initiated for winding up a company does not extend or otherwise affect the limitation period applicable to an independent civil suit seeking recovery of money. The cause of action for recovery has already become time-barred, the period spent pursuing a separate winding-up proceeding cannot be automatically excluded to revive the claim.
The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has observed that the mere fact that payments towards certain admitted bills were deducted from the overall claim did not transform the transaction into a running account. The suit was specifically founded on individual invoices.
The dispute arose from a money-recovery suit filed by the respondent partnership firm in respect of supplies allegedly made to the appellant. The claim was based on several bills, with the plaint setting out the dates, invoice numbers, particulars, quantities and amounts relating to the transactions.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The Trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish that it was a registered partnership firm and that the action was consequently barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
The First Appellate Court took a different view. It accepted the documentary evidence demonstrating registration of the partnership firm and proceeded to decide the merits of the recovery claim. It ultimately directed payment of Rs.24,36,105 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realization.
The defendant challenged the appellate judgment before the Supreme Court, principally arguing that the recovery claim was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had also failed to produce legally sufficient proof of registration.
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge concerning the plaintiff’s status as a registered partnership firm.
The Court examined Exhibit-8, a memorandum issued by the Registrar of Firms, West Bengal. The document acknowledged receipt of the relevant documents and indicated that they had been filed, recorded or registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It also contained Registration No. L73931, demonstrating that the respondent-firm had been registered at least by May 14, 2010.
The Court further noted that a certified copy of Form-VIII produced under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure corroborated the registration number and the date of registration appearing in Exhibit-8. The additional document was considered relevant because it reinforced the existing evidence and assisted the court in reaching a proper decision.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no justification for the Trial Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff was not a registered partnership firm.
Having settled the question of registration, the Supreme Court turned to the central issue of limitation.
The Court noted that the suit was founded upon specific invoices and bills rather than a running account, notwithstanding the fact that the parties had undertaken numerous transactions. The respondent’s claim related to supplies totalling Rs.23,41,693.
The appellant had admitted having commercial transactions with the respondent. However, it disputed a substantial portion of the claim, alleging that an employee had fraudulently created documents purporting to establish receipt of goods. Only two bills were admitted and paid after receipt of notice.
The respondent attempted to rely upon an alleged admission of debt and part payment as the basis for computing limitation. It referred to events in June and September 2008, as well as a communication dated August 1, 2008.
A significant argument advanced by the respondent was that it had earlier approached the Company Court seeking winding up of the appellant and that the Company Court had permitted the respondent to institute a civil suit within three months after disposal of the company proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected the proposition that the winding-up proceeding could extend the limitation period for the independent money-recovery suit.
The Court relied particularly upon its earlier decisions in Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari and Jignesh Shah v. Union of India. It emphasized the distinction between a winding-up proceeding and a civil action for recovery of money.
The Court held that initiation of a winding-up proceeding, which may or may not ultimately result in recovery, does not affect limitation applicable to a separate civil suit founded on an independent cause of action.
The Supreme Court reiterated that a winding-up proceeding and a money-recovery suit are separate remedies with different legal objectives and procedures.
The Court observed that the respondent’s winding-up petition had not resulted in an adjudication establishing an enforceable extension of the limitation period. The appellant had disputed a substantial portion of the claim, and the Company Court had relegated the respondent to the civil remedy in respect of the disputed amount.
The Court also made it clear that the Company Court itself could not extend the statutory limitation period applicable to the subsequent civil suit merely by directing the claimant to pursue its remedy before the Civil Court.
The Supreme Court closely examined the communication dated August 1, 2008 and the payments relied upon by the respondent.
The Court found that the communication did not constitute an acknowledgment of the debt that was subsequently sought to be recovered through the suit. The amounts paid related to specific invoices that the appellant admitted as due. One of those invoices was not even included in the schedule of claims in the plaint because it had already been paid before the demand notice was issued.
The Court therefore rejected the attempt to characterize those payments as a part payment capable of extending limitation for the disputed bills.
The Court specifically examined the dates of the invoices.
In relation to two bills dated January 30, 2006, the Court held that a suit for recovery ought to have been instituted by January 29, 2009. Even if the filing of the Company Petition on February 10, 2009 were considered for the purpose of examining exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, that filing itself occurred after the limitation period had expired.
With respect to the remaining bills, the last of which was dated March 6, 2007, the civil suit was instituted only on June 5, 2010, by which time the limitation period had also expired.
Another important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s rejection of the argument that the transactions between the parties constituted a running account.
The Court further observed that the demand notice, the response to that notice and the payments relating to admitted bills, coupled with disputes concerning the remaining invoices, undermined the respondent’s attempt to establish a continuing cause of action.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that although the respondent had successfully established its status as a registered partnership firm, the recovery claim itself was barred by limitation.
The Court therefore reversed the First Appellate Court’s judgment insofar as it granted the recovery relief and dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
