Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20th July, 2026
M/S G.R. SHEETGRAH PVT.LTD. & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Anshul Gupta, Mr. Rishabh Darida and Mr. Aditya Tainguriya, Advs.
20.07.2026 Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
ORDER
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal arises out of order dated 11th March, 2026 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed by the ld. District Judge, (Commercial Court-03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in OMP (COMM) No. 118/2025 titled as M/s G.R. Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium (SFAC).
3. The said order was passed in a petition filed by the Appellant challenging the award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 7th July, 2025. Vide the impugned order, ld. District Judge had upheld the award dated 7th July, 2025, and had accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant u/s 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. The short issue that the ld. Arbitrator decided in its award was whether the claims of the Respondent were filed within the limitation period or not. In respect thereof, the ld. Arbitrator in award dated 7th July, 2025 had held as under:
5. The said award dated 7th July, 2025 was challenged before the ld. District Judge, Commercial Court, and vide the impugned order dated 11th March, 2026, the award has been upheld.
6. The background of the case is that the Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium had given a loan for a sum of Rs.37.70 lakhs in the form of Venture Capital Assistance to M/s G.R. Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. and the Directors thereof, who are Appellants herein.
7. In terms of the said assistance, initially the final date for re-payment was agreed to be 31st December, 2019.
8. However, owing to the outbreak of Covid pandemic and other reasons, the Appellant had sought an extension of the payment time and the same was extended to 31st December, 2020.
9. The Appellants had also issued cheques to secure the Respondent, however, there were no subsequent payments by the Appellants, leading to complaints being filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In addition, the Respondent also commenced arbitration before the ld. Sole Arbitrator seeking recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs.32,12,531/-.
10. As per ld. Counsel for the Appellant, in respect of two cheques, the offence has been compounded and the payment has been made. In respect to the remaining cheques, arbitration proceedings were initiated.
11. In the arbitral proceedings, the Appellant raised an issue of limitation on the ground that the claims were time barred.
12. The ld. Arbitrator decided the said objection and held that the claims filed were well within the period of limitation. This order has also been upheld by the learned District Judge in the impugned judgment, wherein it has been observed as under:-
13. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in terms of the order dated 08th March, 2021 in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, passed by the Supreme Court, the claims would be barred by limitation.
14. He further submits that since the period between 15th March, 2020 and 02nd October, 2021 alone was to be excluded, the claim petition filed on 1st August, 2024 is time barred.
15. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for Respondent argues to the contrary and submits that the last date for re-payment itself was during the Covid pandemic period i.e. 31st December, 2020, therefore, the period till 28th February, 2022 automatically gets excluded and only thereafter, the limitation period would commence.
16. A reading of the two orders dated 08th March, 2021 and 10th January, 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, would clearly show that the period between 15th March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 is fully excluded. Relevant portions of the said orders are extracted below: Order dated 8th March, 2021 passed in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation
Order dated 10th January, 2022 passed in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION
(C) NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation
5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
17. In the present case, the limitation period did not commence prior to 28th December, 2020 and therefore, the period till 28th February, 2022 would be fully excluded. The issue stands, therefore, decided correctly by the ld. Sole Arbitrator.
18. In fact, the ld. District Judge, in the impugned order has considered other judgments passed thereafter by the Supreme Court and by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Aptech Ltd. [Arbitration petition no. 29 of 2023] and M/s Saipem Triune Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd. [IA No. 11505/2023 in CS (OS) 2340/2008] respectively. Relevant portions of the said decisions are extracted hereunder: M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Aptech Ltd. [Arbitration petition no. 29 of 2023]
M/s Saipem Triune Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd. [IA No. 11505/2023 in CS (OS) 2340/2008] order dated 07.10.2024
19. From a conjoint reading of the above orders as also the rationale behind the same, it is clear that in a case where the limitation commenced during the pandemic, the said period would run only after 28th February 2022. During the pandemic, limitation ought not to run. The limitation in this case having fallen on 31st December, 2020 i.e., during the COVID-19 pandemic, the limitation would begin to run only from 28th February, 2022 and not before.
20. Under these circumstances, the view of the ld. Arbitrator as also the Commercial Court do not warrant any interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
21. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 20, 2026/dss/ss