Category: Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

2024 INSC 394 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY LAXMAN BHAWE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS — Appellant Vs. P & S NIRMAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS —…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

2024 INSC 396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.P. KHEMKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

2024 INSC 375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN LAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 9 Rule 7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting the appellant’s negligence and inconsistency in statements – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the lower courts and refusing to condone the inordinate delay.

2024 INSC 281 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL) — Appellant Vs. GYANENDRA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3 – The court emphasized the importance of the law of limitation, stating that litigation must have an end and cannot be prolonged indefinitely – The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 3 of the Limitation Act and the discretionary nature of Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay if ‘sufficient cause’ is shown – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the Special Leave Petition due to the petitioners’ negligence and lack of due diligence in pursuing the matter.

2024 INSC 286 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) — Respondent ( Before :…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Court emphasized the importance of timely litigation and found no sufficient cause to condone the extensive delay – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to condone the delay – The respondent was entitled to the decree’s benefits without further legal delays.

2024 INSC 262 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha…

Court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, stating that the time spent before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the limitation period, as it was pursued with due diligence and good faith – The appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and the execution application is restored for fresh consideration regarding the limitation period – The Court emphasizes the need to interpret Section 14 of the Limitation Act in a manner that advances justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURNI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BABU RAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S APTECH LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – In the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL(ASSAM) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.