OSA/90/2020 of MOOSA AHMED(DECEASED) Vs M/S.IOCEE EXPORTS LIMITED
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page1 of 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
17.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON
17.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
OSA No. 90 of 2020
and Cross Objection No.54 of 2022
and CMP.No.3745 of 2022
OSA No. 90 of 2020
Moosa Ahmed(deceased)
1) Mr.Mohammed Abdul Majid
2) T.S.Hajee Moosa And Co
Post Box No.1771, No.33 Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner,
Mr.Mohamed Abdul Majid.
3) M/s Hamosons Exports Private Ltd
H.M.Center 1st Floor, 15-a, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 034.
Represented by its Managing Director
M.Rmoosa Ahmed.
4) M/s Famtex Exports Priavate Ltd,
Regd. Office H.M.Centre 15-A,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.
Rep by its Managing Director,
Mr.Moosa Ahmed.
5) M/s Famco Enterprises
Post Box No.1771, No.33, Godown Street,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page2 of 18
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
6) M/s Amex Garments Private Ltd,
H.M.Centre, 1st Floor, 15-A, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 035 Repo By Its
Managing Director, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
7) Mr.Ashfaag Moosa
8) Mr.Fahim Moosa
9) Mr.Zoheb Moosa
10) Mr.Arsheen
..Appellant(s)
Vs
M/s.IOCEE Exports Limited
4E, Century Plaza 4th Floor, 560-562, Mount
Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 Represented
By its Executive
Mr.Ganesh Patwari
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules or 13-A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Clause 15 of Letter Patent t o set aside the
judgment and decree dated 06-11-2019 in CS No.343 of 2011 passed by the
Learned Judge.
For Appellant(s): Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sathasivam
Cross Objection No.54 of 2022
M/s.IOCEE Exports Ltd,
4E, Century Plaza, 560-562, Mount Road
Teynampet, Chennai-18,
Represented by its Executive Mr.Ganesh Patwari.
..Appellant(s)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page3 of 18
Vs
Moosa Ahmed (Deceased)
1) Mohammed Abdul Majid,
2) T.S.Hajee Moosa And Co
Post Box No.1771, No.33 Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner,
Mr.Mohamed Abdul Majid.
3) M/s Hamosons Exports Private Ltd
H.M.Center 1st Floor, 15-a, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 034.
Represented by its Managing Director M.Rmoosa
Ahmed.
4) M/s Famtex Exports Priavate Ltd,
Regd. Office H.M.Centre 15-A, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 034. Rep by its
Managing Director,
Mr.Moosa Ahmed.
5) M/s Famco Enterprises
Post Box No.1771, No.33, Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
6) M/s Amex Garments Private Ltd,
H.M.Centre, 1st Floor, 15-A, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 035 Repo By Its
Managing Director, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
7) Mr.Ashfaag Moosa
8) Mr.Fahim Moosa
9) Mr.Zoheb Moosa
10) Mr.Arsheen
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Cross Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of he Code of Civil
Procedure, to allow this Cross Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page4 of 18
06.11.2019 made in CS.No. 343 of 2011 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and to
direct the Respondents herein to pay a further sum of Rs.1,88,11,749.78/- (One
Crore Eighty Eight Lakhs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Nine
rupees and Seventy Eight Paisa) together with interest at 24% per a nnum from
the date of Plaint till the date of realization and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sathasivam
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)
The present appeal has been filed by the defendant challenging the
judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019 whereby the suit was partly decreed by
the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.343 of 2011 and the Cross Objection has
been filed by the plaintiff as against the disallowed portion.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel/counsel appearing for their respective
parties in the respective Appeal and Cross Objection.
3. A suit had been instituted for recovery of money on the basis of the
loans that were advanced by the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.2,26,82,963.78/-
together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and the same was
primordially contested on the ground of limitation. The following issues were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page5 of 18
framed.
(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,26,82,963.78 payable by the defendants, with interest at
24% per annum ?
(iii) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled ?
4. The parties have examined themselves and have also marked various
exhibits on either side. Answering to the issues, the learned Single Judge had
held that the plaintiffs claim for the entire suit claim had been barred by
limitation and had decreed a sum of Rs.38,71,214/- without any interest t here
upon and the plaintiff was held to be entitled to 6% interest from the date of the
decree till its realisation, on a finding that the decreed amount as reflected in the
accounts to be an acknowledgement of liability.
5. The defendants have filed an Intra-Court Appeal primarily contendi ng
that even the said acknowledgement which had been relied upon by the learned
Single Judge under Ex.P33 is dated 30.01.2006 and therefore, the suit ought to
have been filed on or before 29.01.2009 but the suit had been presented before
this Court only on 30.01.2009 and therefore, the entire suit itself is barr ed by
law of limitation. He would submit that the learned Single Judge had wholly
erred in failing to note that the suit had been hit by the law of limitation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page6 of 18
proceeded to hold based on Ex.P33, that the defendants are liable to pay the
decreed amount. He would further submit that the said amount shown in the
books of accounts as reflected in Ex.P33 also only relates to an
acknowledgement which was beyond the period of limitation and therefor e,
such acknowledgement at any rate cannot be taken to be an acknowledgem ent
of liability falling under Section 18 of the Limitation Act to grant the decree.
Hence, he would seek indulgence of this Court.
6. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/ plaintiff would submit that under Ex.P33, it is the defendants on
their own volition have accepted that there was a debt payable by t hem to the
plaintiffs and therefore, the decree under the same cannot be said t o be a decree
which requires interference by this Court. That apart, he would su bmit that the
learned Single Judge had failed to note that the transactions between the parties
are continuous transactions and therefore, the entire suit claim would also not be
hit by law of limitation. He would submit that when the transacti on have been
accepted to by the parties, the learned Single Judge ought to have grante d a
decree as prayed for based upon the uncontroverted evidence of PW1 and t he
exhibits filed through him. He would further submit that even for the amount
decreed, the learned Single Judge had failed to grant interest atle ast from the
date of the filing the plaint and therefore, he would submit that i f this Court
upholds the decree interest from the date of at least the plaint bei ng filed before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page7 of 18
this Court may be granted. In that context, he would submit that the judgment
and the decree of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfer ed with by
granting a decree for the entire suit claim together with interest.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior
counsel/counsel appearing for their respective parties in the respect ive Appeal
and Cross Objection.
8. The suit had been filed based upon the transactions between the pa rties
for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,26,82,963.78/-. However, a perusal of the
judgment would show that the plaintiffs, who have filed Cross Objections the
decree had restricted their claim only with regard to the a cknowledged liability
namely Rs.38,78,214/- with interest. Having restricted their claim bef ore the
learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that their claim for the
balance disallowed portion made by the plaintiffs cannot be entertaine d. For
better appreciation, the recording of the learned Single Judge to that extent
alone is extracted hereunder:-
“9. ….. Though the suit has been filed for recovery of
Rs.2,26,82,963.78, the plaintiff during the submissions has restricted
theit claim only with regard to the admitted liability by the def endants
namely In the entire written Rs.38,71,214/- with interest. In the entire
written statement, the transaction between the plaintiff and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page8 of 18
defendants is not disputed.”
9. It would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Cour t
reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463 in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak and another. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex
Court had held that a party cannot be allowed to resile from a concession that
had been made, in the Appellate Court with regard to the concessi on that has
been given by it in the Court which has passed orders unless or until suc h
concession had been made on the wrong appreciation of law which leads to a
gross injustice.
10. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:-
“4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney-General to t he
concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared
for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the
arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay
before us intervened and protested that he never made any such
concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by
him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an
enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done.
Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page9 of 18
record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot
be dragged into the arena. “Judgments cannot be treated as mere
counters in the game of litigation.” [Per Lord Atkinson
in Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136 : 99
IC 742] We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in
their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the
statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by
affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that
something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the
last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of
fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of
the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict
such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the
happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is
incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the mi nds of
the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the
record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct
was a statement that had been made in error. [ Per Lord Buckmaster
in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain, AIR 1917 PC
30 : 42 IC 527] That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no
such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a
party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and
appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page10 of 18
concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to
gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making
the concession as recorded in the judgment.”
11. In the present case, admittedly, the last of the demand made by t he
plaintiffs/ cross objector was under Ex.P29 is dated 07.09.2004 and further the
claim is based upon Ex.P33 which is a letter written by the a ppellants calling
upon the Cross Objector to confirm its outstanding. Hence, the demands m ade
under Ex.P29 would definitely be beyond the period of limitation as the sui t
itself has been filed only in the year 2009. Hence, we cannot also say that there
is wrong appreciation of the fact and law, to permit the Cross Objector to
resiling the confession made before the learned Single Judge.
12. The only issue that now is to be decided is to whether the learne d
Single Judge was right in decreeing the suit based upon Ex.P33 which is dated
30.01.2006 by treating it to be an acknowledgement of liability. Even though,
the appellants have assailed the order by contending that the same could also
not be treated as an acknowledgment of liability falling under Sect ion 18 of the
Limitation Act, the appellants have also contended that even if a ssuming that it
is an acknowledgment of liability falling under Section 18, such clai m would
also be barred by limitation as the suit had not been initiated within a period of
3 years ie., on or before 29.01.2009 and hence, the same is also barred by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page11 of 18
limitation.
13. We had called upon the records of the suit to be placed before us to
verify the fact as to whether the suit had been filed within the period of
limitation. Admittedly, Ex.P33 is dated 30.01.2006 and therefore, the suit would
have to be laid within a period of three years which would fall on or before
29.01.2006. A perusal of the plaint would indicate that the plaint had been
presented before this Court on 30.01.2006 which is a day beyond the period of
limitation. Therefore, we come to a conclusion that the suit even based upon
Ex.P33 would be beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the suit itself
would have to fail.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands allowed and the
judgment and decree made by the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.343 of 2011
stands set aside. Consequently, the Cross Objection also fails. Connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed. However, there shall be no orde r as to
costs.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
17.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page12 of 18
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
A Pre-Delivery order made in
OSA No. 90 of 2020
and Cross Objection No.54 of 2022
and CMP.No.3745 of 2022
17.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page13 of 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
OSA No. 90 of 2020
and Cross Objection No.54 of 2022
and CMP.No.3745 of 2022
OSA No. 90 of 2020
Moosa Ahmed(deceased)
1) Mr.Mohammed Abdul Majid
2) T.S.Hajee Moosa And Co
Post Box No.1771, No.33 Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner,
Mr.Mohamed Abdul Majid.
3) M/s Hamosons Exports Private Ltd
H.M.Center 1st Floor, 15-a, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 034.
Represented by its Managing Director
M.Rmoosa Ahmed.
4) M/s Famtex Exports Priavate Ltd,
Regd. Office H.M.Centre 15-A,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034.
Rep by its Managing Director,
Mr.Moosa Ahmed.
5) M/s Famco Enterprises
Post Box No.1771, No.33, Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page14 of 18
6) M/s Amex Garments Private Ltd,
H.M.Centre, 1st Floor, 15-A, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 035 Repo By Its
Managing Director, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
7) Mr.Ashfaag Moosa
8) Mr.Fahim Moosa
9) Mr.Zoheb Moosa
10) Mr.Arsheen
..Appellant(s)
Vs
M/s.IOCEE Exports Limited
4E, Century Plaza 4th Floor, 560-562, Mount
Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 Represented
By its Executive
Mr.Ganesh Patwari
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules or 13-A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Clause 15 of Letter Patent t o set aside the
judgment and decree dated 06-11-2019 in CS No.343 of 2011 passed by the
Learned Judge.
For Appellant(s): Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sathasivam
Cross Objection No.54 of 2022
M/s.IOCEE Exports Ltd,
4E, Century Plaza, 560-562, Mount Road
Teynampet, Chennai-18,
Represented by its Executive Mr.Ganesh Patwari.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page15 of 18
Moosa Ahmed (Deceased)
1) Mohammed Abdul Majid,
2) T.S.Hajee Moosa And Co
Post Box No.1771, No.33 Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner,
Mr.Mohamed Abdul Majid.
3) M/s Hamosons Exports Private Ltd
H.M.Center 1st Floor, 15-a, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 034.
Represented by its Managing Director M.Rmoosa
Ahmed.
4) M/s Famtex Exports Priavate Ltd,
Regd. Office H.M.Centre 15-A, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 034. Rep by its
Managing Director,
Mr.Moosa Ahmed.
5) M/s Famco Enterprises
Post Box No.1771, No.33, Godown Street,
Chennai 600 001.
Represented by its Partner, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
6) M/s Amex Garments Private Ltd,
H.M.Centre, 1st Floor, 15-A, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai 600 035 Repo By Its
Managing Director, Mr.Moosa Ahmed
7) Mr.Ashfaag Moosa
8) Mr.Fahim Moosa
9) Mr.Zoheb Moosa
10) Mr.Arsheen
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Cross Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of he Code of Civil
Procedure, to allow this Cross Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated
06.11.2019 made in CS.No. 343 of 2011 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and to
direct the Respondents herein to pay a further sum of Rs.1,88,11,749.78/- (One
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page16 of 18
Crore Eighty Eight Lakhs Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Nine
rupees and Seventy Eight Paisa) together with interest at 24% per a nnum from
the date of Plaint till the date of realization and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Sathasivam
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)
After the judgment was delivered by us on 17.04.2026, the learned
counsel for the appellant had requested refund of the amount deposited befor e
this Court. While drafting the order as claimed for by the appell ant, it was
noticed that the appellant had originally deposited a sum of Rs.12,90,405/-
which was a pre-condition for grant of interim stay had been withdr awn by the
respondent/ plaintiff pursuant to the permission granted by this Court. That
apart, the appellant had also been directed to furnish a bank guarantee of sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- with 9% interest by order dated 18.11.2024 which was furnished
to by the petitioner and that apart with regard to 9% interest that was ordered,
the petitioner had given a fixed deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- which remains in a
fixed deposit made by the Court. In such view of the matter, the following order
is made:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page17 of 18
a)The respondent/ plaintiff shall repay the appellant a
sum of Rs.12,90,405/- withdrawn by him within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
b)The Registrar General is directed to return the bank
guarantee furnished by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
c)The Registrar General shall also disburse the sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- which had been kept in a fixed deposit together with
the accrued interest thereon to the appellant without any notice t o
the respondent.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
24.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA No. 90 of 2020
__________
Page18 of 18
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
OSA No. 90 of 2020
and Cross Objection No.54 of 2022
and CMP.No.3745 of 2022
24.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis