Delay in filing claim only bars remedy, it does not extinguish any debt duly acknowledged by electronic communication

Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading Crude Palm Oil (edible grade). The subject disputes arose out of two agreements for the sale and purchase of Crude Palm Oil on a High Seas Sale Basis.

Coral-Purchaser issued two separate invoices for the sale of Crude Palm Oil, and according to petitioner, an aggregate sum of Rs. 19,03,77,000/- became due and payable by Megha to Coral.

In terms of a Scheme of Amalgamation Purchaser merged with another company-Haldiram. Assets of purchaser also stood vested with said company. These included the amount receivable from the petitioner in respect of the two High Sea Sale Agreements in question. In reference to the dispute, the arbitrator passed an award on the basis of acknowledgement of debt by the party by electronic communication.

No case has been made out by the petitioner that the arbitral award is contrary to the Fundamental Policy of India. The arbitral award cannot by any stretch be considered to be opposed to justice or morality. The dispute in the present case relates to a simple transaction of sale and purchase of goods. All that the Arbitral Tribunal has done is, after having found that the petitioners had not paid for the goods purchased by them, awarded that the said consideration be paid with interest. It is trite that a delay in filing a claim only bars the remedy, it does not extinguish any debt. Viewed in this perspective, the Arbitral Tribunal has after evaluating the material, rejected the petitioner’s contention that respondent is denied its remedy to seek what it claimed to be legitimately due to it. There is no question of such an approach offending any sense of morality as is embodied in the expression 'public policy. Mere erroneous application of law would not warrant any interference in the Arbitral Award.

Appearing counsel/s: MrP. D. Gupta with Mr Dhruv Gupta and Mr Harshil Gupta, Mr Varun Goswami, Mr Naveen Grover and Ms Barkha Khattar,

Conviction under S. 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is invalid when the accused persons are acquitted under S. 379 IPC for theft arising from the same transaction.

AIR 2025 SC 3890 : AIROnline 2025 SC 760 Legal principles "In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge.", "Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires that the property is proved to be stolen property.", "If the prosecution fails to establish

Benefit of maternity leave with allowance to Contractual employee

AIROnline 2022 KER 275 An educational society CPAS is an "establishment" under S. 2(1)(b) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as the term covers any establishment under State law, not only commercial entities. Hence MB Act's applicable to contract employees in establishments like CPAS. Further

Legal Principles Regarding First Appeal S. 96 of Civil P C

AIROnline 2025 MAD 723 "Right of first appeal is a substantive, valuable right and not merely procedural.", "Unless expressly excluded by statute, the right of appeal cannot be limited or taken away by subsequent legislation.", "Appeal is a continuation of the suit.", "Judicial

Read next