A trial court found the claim proved — and dismissed the suit anyway, holding it time-barred because the plaint, first presented on 6 October 2010, was returned for defects and only registered on 16 October. In LTU Lufttransport Unternehmen GmbH v. Airports Authority of India (RFA 277/2022, decided 30 October 2026), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court set that reasoning aside: a suit is instituted when the plaint is presented, curable procedural defects relate back to presentation, and a party is entitled to file on any day within limitation — including the last. The German airline's refund claim of Rs 68,24,653.71, arising from a credit AAI itself acknowledged in 2007, was decreed with 6% simple interest from 5 July 2007 until realisation.
Sixteen years from payment to decree
The underlying facts were narrow. In April 2006 the airline paid an AAI overfly bill in US dollars where rupees were due, generating a substantial credit. AAI's own e-mail of 5 July 2007 acknowledged Rs 1,46,33,653.71 standing to the airline's credit; Rs 78,09,000 was refunded that October; and the balance of Rs 68,24,653.71 became the suit claim. AAI's defence — that the e-mail covered only the Northern Region and the balance was adjusted against Western Region dues — failed on the evidence: the High Court found that no principal amount was shown to be due for any region, and that AAI's ledgers were not proved in accordance with the rules of evidence.
The limitation battle
The court assembled the governing authorities: Vidyawati Gupta on the curability of Order VI and VII defects; Mannan Lal v. Chhotaka Bibi and Section 149 CPC on court-fee deficiencies relating back; Uday Shankar Triyar on vakalatnama defects; and the Full Bench in Pragati Construction Consultants for the modern synthesis — a filing is non est only where the cumulative defects show it was never a genuine plaint at all. The court also declined to import the stricter timelines of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 into an ordinary recovery suit filed in 2010.
Authority to sue: the cross-objections fail
AAI's cross-objections attacked the authority of the plaintiff's attorney and the suit's institution, the airline having meanwhile merged into Air Berlin and entered insolvency administration in Germany. The court held that the power of attorney, subsequent ratification and the insolvency administrator's authorisation together cured any defect, applying United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar — pleadings signed under a power of attorney can be ratified, and corporate technicalities should not defeat substantive claims.
Why the judgment matters beyond its facts
- For recovery practice: the institution date is the presentation date. Registry objections — court fees, vakalatnama, formatting — do not restart the limitation clock unless the original filing was a sham.
- For defendants: an adjustment defence must be proved like any other claim — ledgers require formal proof, and a bald plea of regional set-off will not displace the creditor's acknowledged credit.
- For interest claims: absent a contractual rate, courts fix what is reasonable; pleading 12% in the notice does not compel it.
- For foreign plaintiffs: mergers and insolvency administrations abroad do not derail an Indian suit where authority is documented and ratified.
Practice note: File within limitation and keep the filing receipt — the presentation date, not the registration date, is the shield. When a plaint is returned with objections, cure and re-file promptly, and maintain a defect-wise record: under the Pragati Construction framework, the pattern of refiling is what separates a curable filing from a non est one.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the dispute about?
The airline overpaid AAI's route navigation charges in 2006 by remitting in US dollars. AAI's e-mail of 5 July 2007 acknowledged a credit of Rs 1.46 crore, refunded Rs 78.09 lakh in October 2007, and the airline sued for the balance of Rs 68.24 lakh, which AAI claimed to have adjusted against alleged Western Region dues.
Why did the trial court dismiss a proved claim?
On limitation: the plaint was presented on 6 October 2010, returned for registry defects, re-filed on 8 October and registered on 16 October 2010. The trial court treated the later date as the institution date, placing the suit outside limitation despite finding the claim otherwise established.
What is the relation-back principle the High Court applied?
Following Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, defects under Orders VI and VII CPC are procedural and curable, and their cure relates back to the original presentation. Under Pragati Construction Consultants, a filing is non est only where cumulative defects show it was made merely to stop limitation — not for individual curable defects.
Why only 6% interest when the demand notice claimed 12%?
No contractual interest rate existed between the parties. In the absence of an agreement, the court fixed a reasonable rate, awarding 6% simple interest per annum from 5 July 2007 — the date of AAI's acknowledgment e-mail — until realisation.