M/S G.R. Sheetgrah Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. vs Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium (Sfac)

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 20 July, 2026
nd
Uploaded on: 22 July, 2026
+ FAO (COMM) 170/2026 & CM APPL. 39834/2026
M/S G.R. SHEETGRAH PVT.LTD. & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv.
versus
SMALL FARMERS AGRI-BUSINESS CONSORTIUM
(SFAC) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anshul Gupta, Mr. Rishabh
Darida and Mr. Aditya Tainguriya,
Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
O R D E R
% 20.07.2026
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
th
2. The present appeal arises out of order dated 11 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
th
challenging the award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 7 July, 2025. Vide the
impugned order, ld. District Judge had upheld the award dated 7th July, 2025,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 1 of 10

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. I have carefully considered the submissions of
both parties and the record of the proceedings.
6. It is undisputed that the cause of action arose on
31.12.2020. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the
limitation period would end on 31.12.2023. However,
the Order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition {C) No. 3 of
2020, which is still binding, categorically held that the
period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded for the purposes of limitation for all judicial
'and quasi-judicial proceedings, including arbitration.
7. The order specifically provides that, for cases where
the limitation would have expired between 15.03.2020
and 28.02.2022, an additional period of 90 days from
01.03.2022 was to be granted. However, in cases where
the limitation had not expired before 28.02.2022, the
balance period of limitation was to commence from
01.03.2022.
8. In the present case, as the limitation had not expired
by 28.02.2022 (since it was due to expire on
31.12.2023), the Claimant clearly falls in the latter
category. Thus, in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court’s Order, the limitation period stood paused till
28.02.2022 and resumed from 01.03.2022 for the entire
remaining duration of three years.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 2 of 10

9. Accordingly, the Claimant had time up to
28.02.2025 to file the present claim. The claim having
been filed on 01.08.2024 is therefore, clearly within the
limitation period.
10. The reliance placed by the Respondent on the
judgment in DDA vs Tejpal [(2024) 5 SCR 1211] is
misplaced. In that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated that only those cases where the
limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 and
28.02.2022 would get the benefit of the additional 90
days from 01.03.2022. However, it also reaffirmed that
in cases where limitation had not expired before
28.02.2022, the period stood extended, and the balance
limitation recommenced from 01.03.2022 – precisely as
in the present case.
11. Thus, the present claim has been filed within
the limitation period as per the binding directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. In view of the above analysis, I hold and
declare that the present claim filed by the Claimant is
not barred by limitation and is maintainable.”
5. The said award dated 7th July, 2025 was challenged before the ld.
th
District Judge, Commercial Court, and vide the impugned order dated 11
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
st
was agreed to be 31 December, 2019.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 3 of 10

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
st
extended to 31 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:-
“18. In the present case, admittedly the cause of
action arose on 31.12.2020. In view of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for
extension of limitation (supra) which was also followed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arif Azim
(supra), the entire period commencing from 15.03.2020
to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded for the purposes of
computation of limitation. It may be noted that in the
case of M/s. Saipem Triune (supra) also the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court while computing the period of
limitation in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in that regard had excluded the entire period
between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purposes of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 4 of 10

calculating the period of limitation. Accordingly, in the
present case, the limitation for the purposes of filing the
claim would commence on01.03.2022 and hence, the
claim filed by the claimant / respondent on 01.08.2024,
would be within limitation.
19. A perusal of the impugned order dated
07.07.2025 reveals that the Ld. Arbitrator has duly
considered the effect of the aforesaid directions issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has computed the
limitation after excluding the period from 15.03.2020
till 28.02.2022.
20. In view of the binding judicial precedents and
the material placed on record, this Court finds that the
Ld. Arbitrator has rightly applied the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the objection
of the petitioners regarding limitation.”
13. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that in terms of the order dated
th
08 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.
th
14. He further submits that since the period between 15 March, 2020 and
nd st
02 October, 2021 alone was to be excluded, the claim petition filed on 1
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
st th
pandemic period i.e. 31 December, 2020, therefore, the period till 28
February, 2022 automatically gets excluded and only thereafter, the limitation
period would commence.
th th
16. A reading of the two orders dated 08 March, 2021 and 10 January,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 5 of 10

2022 passed by the Supreme Court in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C)
NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, would
th th
clearly show that the period between 15 March, 2020 to 28 February, 2022
is fully excluded. Relevant portions of the said orders are extracted below:
th
Order dated 8 March, 2021 passed in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C)
NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation
“1. Due to the onset of Covid-19 pandemic, this court
took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from
difficulties that might be faced by the litigants across
the country in filing
petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other
'proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed
under the general law of limitation or under any
special laws (both Central or State). By an order dated
23.03.2020 this Court extended the period of limitation
prescribed under the general law or special laws
whether compoundable or not with effect from
15.03.2020 till further orders. The order dated
23.03.2020 was extended from time to time. Though,
we have not seen the end of the pandemic, there is
considerable improvement. The lockdown has been
lifted and the country is returning to normalcy. Almost
all the Courts and Tribunals are functioning either
physically or by prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and
294 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, L881 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.”
th
Order dated 10 January, 2022 passed in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION
(C) NO. 3 OF 2020, titled Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 6 of 10

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.
th
17. In the present case, the limitation period did not commence prior to 28
th
December, 2020 and therefore, the period till 28 February, 2022 would be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 7 of 10

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]
“82. Thus, in ordinary circumstances, the limitation
period available to the petitioner for raising a claim would
have come to an end after an expiry of three year, that is,
on 27.03.2021. However, in March 2020, the entire world
was taken under the grip of the deadly
Covid-19 pandemic bringing everyday life and
commercial activity to a complete halt across the globe.
Taking cognisance of this unfortunate turn of events,
this Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo
Mon Civil Writ Petition No. 03/2020 directed the
period commencing from 15.03.2020 to be excluded for
the purposes of computation of limitation. The said
extension of limitation was extended from time to time
by this Court in view of the continuing pandemic. As a
result the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was
finally determined to be excluded for the computation
of limitation. It was provided that the balance period of
limitation as available on 15.03.2020 would become
available from 01.03.2022.”
M/s Saipem Triune Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 8 of 10

[IA No. 11505/2023 in CS (OS) 2340/2008] order dated
07.10.2024
“39. Clearly, in the context of the present case, since the
limitation under the ordinary circumstances would have
expired on 31.07.2022 i.e. beyond the period of exclusion, the
entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 will have to be
excluded altogether for computing the period of limitation. In
other words, the limitation would cease to run from
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 or the period between the said two
cut-off dates will be additionally available over and above
the prescribed period of three years.
40. Thus computed, the period of limitation that lapsed from
01.08.2019 till 15.03.2020 would be 07 months and 14 days.
The balance period of limitation remaining on 15.03.2020
comes to 02 years, 04 months and 16 days. This period of 02
years, 04 months and 16 days becomes available to the
plaintiff from 01.03.2022, which means that the limitation
period will expire on 17.07.2024 whereas the present
application for restoration was filed on 01.06.2023.
Therefore, the present application has been filed well within
the period of limitation.”
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
th
pandemic, the said period would run only after 28 February 2022. During
the pandemic, limitation ought not to run. The limitation in this case having
st
fallen on 31 December, 2020 i.e., during the COVID-19 pandemic, the
th
limitation would begin to run only from 28 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 9 of 10

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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:22:14
FAO (COMM) 170/2026 Page 10 of 10