Running, non-mutual accounts are governed by the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

The Respondent (Plaintiff), a partnership firm, sued the Appellant (Defendant), a sole proprietorship, for recovery of ₹14,96,069/- arising from the supply of electrical control panels between 2008 and 2009

The Respondent alleged the parties maintained a running account where the last payment of ₹2,97,628/- was made on 09.03.2010

The Appellant contested the suit, arguing that specific invoices from December 2008 (totaling ₹9,09,622/-) were for goods rejected due to delayed delivery

The Appellant further contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that each purchase order constituted a separate contract rather than a running account

The Trial Court decreed the suit for ₹10,89,733/- with 10% interest

1. Whether the suit was validly instituted by a competent person on behalf of the partnership firm

2. Whether the claim was within the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963

3. Whether the Appellant established a valid rejection of goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930

4. Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter

The court applied Order XXX Rule 1 of the CPC, which allows any one partner to sign and verify pleadings on behalf of a firm

Regarding limitation, the court relied on Article 1 and the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, distinguishing between "mutual accounts" and "running/current accounts" as per Kesharichand Jaisukhlal v. Shillong Banking Corpn. and Bharat Skins Corpn. v. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd.

Under Sections 41 and 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a buyer is deemed to have accepted goods if they retain them beyond a reasonable time without intimating rejection

Section 20 of the CPC was applied to determine territorial jurisdiction based on where the defendant carries on business

The Court found the suit validly instituted as the Respondent proved its registration and the signatory's status as a partner

On limitation, the Court determined that while the account lacked "mutuality" (reciprocal demands), it was a "running and current account" because payments were made "on account" rather than invoice-to-invoice

Consequently, following the Bharat Skins precedent, the case fell under the residuary Article 113, and limitation commenced from the last payment (March 2010) and the legal notice (September 2011), making the December 2011 filing timely

Regarding the rejected goods, the Court noted the Appellant admitted receipt of goods and failed to issue any written rejection notice

The alleged debit entries for rejection were made only in 2011, which the Court deemed an afterthought inconsistent with Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act

Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the Appellant's office was located in Delhi, satisfying Section 20 CPC

(i) a partner is an agent of the firm competent to sue; (ii) the suit was within limitation under Article 113 as the right to sue accrued upon the last payment and demand notice in a running account; (iii) the Appellant "deemed" to have accepted the goods by retaining them without notice of rejection; and (iv) Delhi courts had jurisdiction as the defendant operated within the territory. The Respondent's decree for ₹10,89,733/- plus interest stands.