Campos Brothers Farms vs Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt Limited & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 22.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 05.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 05.05.2026

+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
CAMPOS BROTHERS FARMS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Sr. Adv.
alongwith Mr. Abhishek
Mishra, Ms. Sonakshi Singh,
Mr. Kumar Bhaskar and Mr.
Naman Kumar, Advs.

versus

MATRU BHUMI SUPPLY CHAIN PVT LIMITED & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Sulabh Rewari, Ms.
Mansa Shukla, Mr. Shubhansh
Thakur and Mr. Om Shelat,
Advs. for R-1.
Ms. Riya Singh, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal
is whether a civil suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the premise that the cause of action
has merged into a foreign arbitral award, when such award has neither
attained enforceability under Part II of the Arbitration and
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

Conciliation Act, 1996 nor resulted in a decree of an Indian court.
2. The present Appeal, filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before the
learned Single Judge], assails the correctness of judgment and order
dated 03.10.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed
by the learned Single Judge in CS(COMM) No. 1173/2018, whereby
the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff came to be rejected at the threshold
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed in order to
appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal. For the
sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were
arrayed before the learned Single Judge.
4. The Plaintiff claims to be a U.S. based entity. It is alleged that
during the year 2015, four separate and independent contracts were
entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 (three
contracts) and Defendant No.2 (one contract) for the supply of Non-
Pareil In-Shell Almonds [„NPIS‟]. Pursuant thereto, NPIS almonds
were supplied to the Defendants. However, according to the Plaintiff,
the entire consideration payable in respect thereof has not been paid.
While instituting the suit, the Plaintiff disclosed that a foreign arbitral
award dated 25.07.2016 had been passed in its favour. The said award
was sought to be enforced in India in accordance with Part II of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the
„1996 Act‟] by filing a petition under Sections 48 and 49 thereof.
5. In support of the suit, the Plaintiff pleaded its cause of action in
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

paragraph 46 of the plaint, which reads as under:
“46.The cause of action is constituted by the entire bundle of facts
specified above. The cause of action inter alia arose when upon
expiry of the period of credit i.e. from 04.11.2015 onwards, the
Defendant failed to make payment of goods. The cause of action
further arose when the Plaintiff had to sell the consignments to
third parties on the failure of the Defendants to keep their end of
the bargain and the contract. The cause of action further arose
when the Plaintiff agreed conditionally to not claim damages on
losses from sales to third parties, subject and contingent and
conditional on the Defendants making full payments on the
consignments which the Defendants had duly taken possession of,
within the time frame offered. The cause of action further arose
when the Defendants further breached even this condition, and did
not pay the full contracted value even for these 5 consignments
within the times lines offered, thus entitling the Plaintiff to then sue
for all losses. The cause of action further arose when the Plaintiff
issues legal notices dated 19 February 2016 seeking payment of
dues, and when the Defendant issued response legal notice on
11.03.2016 and 01.04.2016. The cause of action arose the various
dates the Defendants committed breach of their contractual
obligations. The cause of action continues since the payments have
not yet been made by the Defendants. The suit is within limitation.
In any event, Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act for the pe r iod of pendency of arbitration and
enforcement proceedings.”
6. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the Plaintiff instituted
CS (COMM) No. 1173/2018 seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
a) Pass a decree of USD 1,155,111 plus interest till date of suit
USD 346,533 i.e, total USD 1,501,644 jointly and severally against
each of the Defendants, and in favour of the Plaintiff, directing the
Defendants to pay the afore stated sums of money to the Plaintiff
along with interest @ 18% p.a. pendent lite and future interest till
date of payment;
b) Alternatively to (a), if the matter is considered as per
contract, pass a decree of USD 1,208,976 [principal USD
929,981.32 plus interest @ 18% p.a. till 31 August 2018 USD
278,995] against Defendant No.1 and a further decree of USD
292,668 [principal USD 225,129.85 plus interest @ 18% p.a. till
31 August 2018 USD 67,538] against the Defendant No.2, and
further against each of Defendant Nos.3-9 jointly and severally,
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

and in favour of the Plaintiff, directing the Defendants to pay the
afore stated sums of money to the Plaintiff, along with, in each
case, interest @ 18% p.a. pendent lite and future interest till date
of payment;
c) Alternatively to (a) and (b), if the matter is considered as per
invoices, pass a decree of USD 490,215 [principal USD
377,088.83 plus interest @18% p.a. till 31 August 2018 i.e. USD
113,126] against Defendant No.1 and a further decree of USD
1,011,429 [principal USD 778,022.34 plus interest @18% p.a. till
31 August 2018 USD 233,407], and further against each of
Defendant Nos. 3-9 jointly and severally, and in favour of the
Plaintiff, directing the Defendants to pay the afore stated sums of
money to the Plaintiff along with, in each case, interest @ 18% p.a.
pendent lite and future interest till date of payment;
d) In the alternative to Prayer (a) to (c), if for any reason under
law the payments cannot be made in USD Currency, direct the
Defendants, in similar terms and manner as the prayers (a) to (c),
to pay the Plaintiff the awarded amount in equivalent Indian
Rupees, at the exchange rate prevailing (i) on or about the date of
the affirmation of affidavit for filing of the present suit [i.e. 1 USD
= 72.57 INR, as per RBI], or (ii) in the alternative to (i), at the
exchange rate prevailing on the date of filing of suit or
alternatively date of decree, whichever is higher and more
beneficial to the Plaintiff between (i) or (ii), or (iii) further in the
alternative, at the exchange rate prevailing on such date as in law
is to be considered as the relevant date to be considered for rate of
exchange;
e) Pass a decree declaring that the actions of the Defendants
are illegal and in breach of contract, and further declare that the
purchase orders relied upon by the Defendants are not valid or
concluded contracts and cannot be enforced, and that the signed
contracts executed between the parties are, have been and continue
to be valid, entitling the Plaintiff to recoveries in terms of prayers
(a) to (d) above;

7. The Plaintiff‟s attempt to enforce the foreign arbitral award did
not succeed in view of the dismissal of its enforcement petition on
02.05.2019. The said order forms the subject matter of challenge in
EFA(OS)(COMM) No. 10/2019, which is stated to be pending
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

consideration before this Court. In the alternative, the Plaintiff had
instituted the present suit in September 2018.
8. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the suit at the
threshold primarily on the following reasoning:
“71. In the light of the principles as discussed above, it is hereby
concluded that the cause of action having merged in the Foreign
Award, which could have been challenged if at all, it could be at
the Court at the Seat of Arbitration, which exercises the
supervisory or primary jurisdiction. There being no challenge to
the Award, it has become binding and the cause of action having
merged in the Award, it does not survive to enable to file a fresh
suit on the same cause of action in the State of origin that is India.”
9. In essence, the learned Single Judge held that the cause of
action forming the basis of the suit stood merged into the foreign
arbitral award and, on that premise, concluded that the suit was not
maintainable. The learned Single Judge did not examine the suit on
merits but confined the dismissal solely to the premise that the cause
of action stood extinguished by merger into the foreign arbitral award.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
10. Contentions of the Appellant
10.1. Learned counsel representing the Appellant, while placing
reliance on Sections 48 and 49 of the 1996 Act, submits that a foreign
arbitral award does not, by itself, constitute a decree enforceable in
India. It is contended that the statutory scheme mandates the filing of
enforcement proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 49 of the
1996 Act, and only upon the Court recording its satisfaction that the
foreign award is enforceable under Chapter II thereof does such award
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

attain the status of a decree of the Court.
10.2. It is further submitted that in the present case, the foreign
arbitral award in favour of the Appellant has been held to be
unenforceable by the competent court, which finding is presently
under challenge in appeal. Consequently, it is urged that the award has
not attained finality or enforceability in India.
10.3. Learned senior counsel contends that in the absence of an
enforceable foreign award, the doctrine of res judicata has no
application, and the underlying cause of action cannot be said to have
been extinguished or merged. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel places reliance on the following judgments –
i. Mohammad Sheriff & Co. Ltd. v. A.P.N. Abdul Jabbar and
Ors. (1996) ILR1 Mad 18
ii. Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. (1964) 4
SCR 19
iii. Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 322
iv. Shree Cement Ltd. Trehan Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2016)(6) R.A.J.98
v. K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573
vi. Rajendran v. Shankar Sundaram (2008) 2 SCC 724
11. Contentions of the Respondents
11.1. Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents, while referring to Section 46 of the 1996 Act, submits
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

that a foreign arbitral award is binding on the parties, and therefore,
the cause of action forming the basis of the suit stands merged into the
award.
11.2. It is contended that the institution of the civil suit amounts to
parallel proceedings and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Learned senior counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has
rightly rejected the Plaint at the threshold as not maintainable.
11.3. It is further urged that the principles of res judicata are
attracted, since the disputes between the parties have already been
adjudicated upon in the foreign arbitral proceedings, rendering the
present suit not maintainable. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel places reliance on the following judgments –
i. Satish Kumar & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar & Ors. AIR 1970 SC
833
ii. Maimunabai Akbar Ali v. Mumtaz Hussain Akber Ali
Topiwali (1987) 1 Bom CR 17
iii. Badat and Co. Bombay v. East India Trading Co. (1964) 4
SCR 19
iv. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Sachin Chhabra & Ors.
(2018) 247 DLT 234
v. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. v. Sachin Chhabra & Ors.
09.10.2018- RFA(OS)(COMM) 4/2018
vi. Bank Kreiss v. Ashok K. Chauhan 2003 (68) DRJ 492
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the paper book, which contains
the entire record of the civil suit as well as written submissions filed
by the parties.
13. The present suit came to be dismissed at the threshold as not
maintainable. The power of the Court to reject a plaint at the threshold
is traceable to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟]. Such power is circumscribed by the
specific grounds enumerated under clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11. A
plaint may be rejected, inter alia , where it does not disclose a cause of
action or where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be
barred by any law.
14. In the present case, the rejection of the plaint was premised on
the reasoning that the cause of action forming the basis of the suit had
merged into a foreign arbitral award. Such a ground, however, does
not find place in any of the clauses of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The plaint was neither rejected on the ground that it did not disclose a
cause of action under clause (a), nor on the ground that the suit was
barred by law under clause (d). It may be noted that the plea of
merger, as urged by the Respondents, is in substance founded on
principles analogous to res judicata , which could, in a given case, fall
within the ambit of a “bar by law” under clause (d). However, the
learned Single Judge has neither recorded a finding to that effect nor
examined whether the necessary ingredients for such a bar stand
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

satisfied. In the absence of such determination, the rejection of the
plaint cannot be sustained on this ground.
15. It is also well settled that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 does not absolutely exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to
adjudicate civil disputes merely because the parties were governed by
an arbitration agreement. Section 8 of the 1996 Act enables a party to
seek reference of disputes to arbitration, but such an objection is
required to be raised by filing an appropriate application before the
submission of the first statement on the substance of the dispute.
Failure to do so results in waiver of the right to seek reference, and the
civil suit is then liable to proceed in accordance with law. Section 8 of
the 1996 Act, no doubt, embodies a legislative mandate which, in a
given case, may operate as an implied bar to the jurisdiction of the
civil court; however, such bar is neither automatic nor absolute, and is
conditioned upon a party invoking the provision in the manner and at
the stage contemplated therein.
16. The jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate civil disputes is
plenary, and any exclusion of such jurisdiction has to be strictly
construed. Where a foreign arbitral award is rendered but is found to
be unenforceable in India, the party in whose favour such award was
passed is required to avail such remedies as are permissible in law for
enforcement of its substantive rights. One such remedy is the
institution of a civil suit. The bar of jurisdiction of the civil court is an
exception, and the same must be clearly established by statute or
necessary implication.
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

17. It is significant to note that the cause of action for recovery of
the amount claimed does not cease to exist merely because a foreign
arbitral award has been passed, particularly when such award has been
held to be unenforceable in India. An unenforceable foreign award
cannot, by itself, extinguish the underlying civil cause of action, as
such award has failed to secure recovery of the amount in favour of
the claimant.
18. The contention advanced on behalf of the Respondents based on
Section 46 of the 1996 Act also does not merit acceptance. While
Section 46 provides that a foreign award shall be binding on the
parties, the expression “binding” cannot be read in isolation so as to
confer enforceability upon a foreign award which has not satisfied the
requirements of Sections 48 and 49 of the Act. Binding effect under
Section 46 does not dispense with the statutory requirement of
enforceability under Chapter II of Part II of the 1996 Act. It is also
relevant to note that the Defendants themselves have taken a specific
stand that the foreign arbitral award is not enforceable in India.
Having done so, it is not open to them to simultaneously contend that
the cause of action has merged into such award so as to non-suit the
Plaintiff at the threshold.
19. At this stage, this Court proceeds to examine the judgments
relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
Respondents in support of the plea that the institution of the civil suit
is barred on account of merger of cause of action into the foreign
arbitral award and on the principles of res judicata .
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

19.1. The reliance placed on Satish Kumar (supra) by the
Respondents is misplaced. The said decision arose in the context of a
domestic arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the issue
before the Supreme Court was whether an unregistered award
effecting partition of immovable property could be acted upon without
registration. While the Court held that an arbitral award is not a mere
waste paper and that the claims referred to arbitration merge into the
award, the said observations were made in the backdrop of a valid and
subsisting domestic award, which was otherwise capable of being
enforced subject to compliance with statutory requirements. The
judgment does not deal with the legal effect of a foreign arbitral award
which has been held to be unenforceable under Sections 48 and 49 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nor does it lay down that
an unenforceable award extinguishes the underlying cause of action.
Consequently, the principles enunciated in Satish Kumar (supra)
cannot be extended to a case where the foreign award has not attained
enforceability or finality in India, and therefore, the said decision does
not advance the case of the Respondents.
19.2. The decision in Maimunabai Akbar Ali (supra) is
distinguishable and does not support the Respondents‟ contention. In
that case, the Bombay High Court was concerned with a domestic
arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the Court held
that an award which is not made a rule of the Court is not merely a
“waste paper” and has legal efficacy, thus barring a suit on the
original cause of action by virtue of Section 32 of the Act. The
decision relied heavily on Satish Kumar (supra), where the Supreme
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

Court held that an unregistered domestic award is not devoid of legal
effect. However, the present case relates to a foreign arbitral award
which has been held unenforceable in India, and the award has not
attained finality or enforceability under Sections 48 and 49 of the
1996 Act. Consequently, the award cannot be treated as binding for
the purpose of merging or extinguishing the cause of action in India.
Therefore, the ratio of Maimunabai Akbar Ali (supra) cannot be
extended to a foreign award which is not enforceable in India, and the
judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
19.3. In Badat and Co. Bombay (supra), the Supreme Court
examined the maintainability of a civil suit founded upon foreign
arbitral awards rendered in New York, in the context of the applicable
New York arbitration law. The Court held that under the law
governing the arbitration, the arbitral awards had no finality or
enforceability by themselves and could attain such status only upon
being confirmed by a judgment of the competent court in New York.
Since the awards in that case had given way to, and stood superseded
by, a foreign judgment, the cause of action was held to arise from the
foreign judgment and not from the awards themselves, and
consequently, the suit founded upon the awards was found to be not
maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The said decision turned entirely
on the absence of finality of the foreign awards under the lex arbitri
and the consequent substitution of the awards by a foreign judgment.
The ratio of the said judgment, therefore, does not advance the case of
the Respondents, as it neither lays down that a foreign arbitral award
per se extinguishes the underlying cause of action nor holds that a
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

civil suit is barred merely on account of the existence of a foreign
award, particularly where such award has not attained enforceability
in India.
19.4. Century Metal 2017 (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the
present case. In that decision, the suit was filed on the basis of a
foreign judgment and consent terms and the Court was concerned with
territorial jurisdiction under Sections 13 and 20 of the CPC, holding
that a suit on the basis of a foreign judgment would not be
maintainable in a Court where the cause of action did not arise and
where the defendants did not “actually and voluntarily reside” or carry
on business. The Court further held that a foreign judgment constitutes
an independent cause of action, and the original cause of action does
not merge into such judgment; therefore, a plaintiff cannot invoke
jurisdiction on the basis of the original cause of action if he chooses to
sue on the foreign judgment. The ratio of Century Metal 2017 (supra)
is confined to territorial jurisdiction and the independence of cause of
action furnished by a foreign judgment, and it does not deal with the
legal effect of a foreign arbitral award which has been held to be
unenforceable under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. In the present case, the suit is not founded on
a foreign judgment but on the original cause of action, and the foreign
award has not attained enforceability in India; therefore, the principles
laid down in Century Metal 2017 (supra) do not apply and cannot be
pressed into service to reject the suit at the threshold.
19.5. Century Metal 2018 (supra) is also distinguishable. In that case,
the suit was founded solely on a foreign consent judgment, and the
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

Court examined whether the suit could be entertained in Delhi when
the cause of action and the personal guarantee were executed in the
United States. The Court held that a suit based on a foreign judgment
is subject to Section 13 of the CPC, and must satisfy Section 20 of the
CPC for territorial jurisdiction; mere allegations of Delhi residence
were insufficient and therefore the suit was dismissed. The decision is
confined to territorial jurisdiction and the conclusiveness of a foreign
judgment, and does not address the question of enforceability of a
foreign arbitral award under Sections 48 and 49 of the 1996 Act. In
the present case, the foreign award has not attained enforceability in
India and the suit is founded on the original cause of action, not on a
foreign judgment; therefore, the ratio of Century Metal (2018) (supra)
does not apply and cannot be pressed into service against the
Appellant.
19.6. Lastly, the decision in Bank Kreiss (supra) is clearly
distinguishable on facts and in law. That case arose out of a suit
founded squarely on a foreign court decree, where the plaintiff sought
to amend the plaint to introduce an alternative cause of action based
on the original suretyship, after having elected to sue on the foreign
judgment. The Court held that once a plaintiff consciously chooses to
base the suit on a foreign judgment, he cannot subsequently shift or
add an inconsistent cause of action founded on the original contract,
particularly when such amendment would alter the very structure of
the suit and attract issues of limitation. In the present case, however,
the suit is not founded on the foreign award, nor has the foreign award
attained enforceability under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and
RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant has proceeded on the original
cause of action, asserting that the foreign award has not been held
enforceable in India. Therefore, the principle in Bank Kreiss (supra),
which turns on election between remedies and amendment of
pleadings in a suit based on a foreign judgment, has no application to
a case where the foreign award is unenforceable and the cause of
action subsists independently.
20. The submission that the institution of the suit amounts to abuse
of the process of law is equally untenable. Abuse of process, by itself,
is not a ground expressly enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
for rejection of a plaint. Moreover, the Plaintiff was constrained to
institute the suit as well as to pursue the appellate remedy against the
order dated 02.05.2019 dismissing the enforcement petition, in order
to safeguard its claim from being rendered time-barred. In such
circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be faulted for pursuing parallel
remedies permissible in law.
CONCLUSION
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in
rejecting the plaint at the threshold cannot be sustained. The cause of
action pleaded in the plaint cannot be said to have merged into a
foreign arbitral award which has not attained enforceability in India.
The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a patent error of law and
is liable to be set aside.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22

22. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside. The suit filed by
the Plaintiff is restored to its original number.
23. The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to
appear before the learned Single Judge on 18.05.2026.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.


AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
MAY 05, 2026
sp/pal

RFA(OS)(COMM) 3/2025
Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:18:22