FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. v. (L) DRANLY LYNGDOH REPRESENTED BY SMTI. ANITA LYNGDOH AND 2 ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI, CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-09-01. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. v. (L) DRANLY LYNGDOH REPRESENTED BY SMTI. ANITA LYNGDOH AND 2 ORS....
Judgment text
Serial No. 01 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA Daily List AT SHILLONG FA No. 1 of 2024 Date of CAV: 18. 08. 2025 Date of pronouncement: 01. 09. 2025 [ 1. Food Corporation of India, a body corporate, established under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, having perpetual succession and common seal, HQ. 16-20 Barakhamba lane, New Delhi:110001, represented by its General Manager (R), NEF Regional Office, Mawlai Mawroh, Sillong-8, district: East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya- 793008, M/NO:-8077819095 (DM Shillong, DO)email: srmme. fci@nic. inshillsh@fci. gov. in 2. The General Manager (R) FCI, NEF Regional office Mawlai, Mawroh, Shillong, District-East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, PIN:793008 3. Divisional Manager (earlier known as Area Manager), Divisional Office, Mawlai, Mawroh, Shillong, District-East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, PIN:793008 …Appellants - Versus - (L) Dranly Lyngdoh, S/o (L) M. Nongsiej, so long Government whole-seller of food grains and transport contractor of the F. C. I.
, Lower Laichumiere, Hopkinson Road, Shillong-1, District-East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, also having residence at Themmarwet P. O. Byrnihat Khanapara-Umling, Ri- Bhoi District, Meghalaya, PIN: 793101 represented by his following heirs and successors:- 1. Smti. Anita Lyngdoh, W/o (L) Dranly Lyngdoh, R/o Lower Laichumiere, Hopkinson Road (near Gold gym), Shillong-1, District-East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. Landline Phone No. 0364-2225048, M/No. 49435112075, PIN-793001, Email-Not know. 2. Shri Paul Lyngdoh, S/o L) Dranly Lyngdoh, R/o Lower Laichumiere, Hopkinson Road (near Gold gym), Shillong-1, District-East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. PIN-793001 3. Smti. Andrina Lyngdoh, D/o L) Dranly Lyngdoh, R/o Lower Laichumiere, Hopkinson Road (near Gold gym), Shillong-1, District-East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. PIN-793001 …. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice I. P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr R.
Choudhury, Adv For the Respondents : Mr B. D. Konwar, Sr Adv. with Mr J. Singh, Adv. Mr L. S. Aimol, Adv. i) Whether approved for Yes reporting in Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: J U D G M E N T (Delivered by Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) The plaintiff in a commercial money suit (No. 11 of 2023) before the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Shillong, East Khasi Hills district is the appellant before us. On the defendant’s/respondent’s application (herein referred to as the respondent) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the learned judge rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by the laws of limitation. Aggrieved, the appellant has instituted this appeal before us. The material facts are very short. There is no dispute that the cause th of action arose on 18 January, 2011 when the contract between the parties was terminated by the appellant.
There is also no dispute that the period of limitation for filing a suit by the appellant was three years from the date of termination of the contract which was to be taken as accrual of the cause of action and of the right to relief for the appellant. After 216 days of the accrual of the cause of action, in the suit filed nd by the respondent, a learned court on 22 August, 2011 passed a status quo th order which continued till 7 March, 2018. Now, the three years period of limitation after excluding the period during which the order of injunction th was operative would expire on 5 August, 2020. Meanwhile, Covid th th intervened. 716 days from 15 March, 2020 to 28 February, 2022 was to be excluded in calculating the period of limitation in terms of the Supreme th Court order dated 10 January, 2022. If Covid had not intervened, the th appellant could have had time till 5 August, 2020 to file the suit i. e. , 144 th days from 15 March, 2020.
By operation of the Supreme Court order which th gave the plaintiff 144 days’ time from 10 January, 2022 (the date when the Supreme Court order was vacated) to file the suit. The suit had to be rd instituted by 23 July, 2022. th On 16 August, 2022, the appellant filed an application for th mediation before the learned court below. Mediation failed on 20 January, 2023. st On 21 March, 2023, the appellant filed the present suit. Therefore, the total delay in filing the suit after excluding the period undergone for mediation was 84 days. In fact, the application for mediation was filed on th rd 16 August, 2022 after expiry of the period of limitation on 23 July, 2022. The period during which mediation was pending is only theoretically excluded. We are of the view that the learned trial court has correctly assessed the period of limitation and very rightly come to the conclusion that the suit th is barred by limitation.
We affirm the judgment and decree dated 13 December, 2023 rejecting the plaint and dismissing the suit. The appeal is dismissed. (W. Diengdoh) (I. P. Mukerji) Judge Chief Justice
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.