More Stories

Informist, Friday, Jan. 10, 2025

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Friday said statutes ought not to provide different periods of limitation for instituting a suit, preferring an appeal, and making an application. Instead, all statutes should stick to a uniform period of limitation, "say 90 days", for preferring a special leave petition or an appeal to the apex court. Justice Pankaj Mithal said courts should also be empowered to condone a delay in filing a case if sufficient cause is shown, rather than restricting the condonable period to a fixed period provided in some statute.

 

This deviation and restriction on filing appeals creates confusion and ordinarily even a lawyer at times fails to notice that a different period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring an appeal under a particular statute, the court said. Moreover, there may be genuine cases where the litigant may not be able to approach the court in time for "cogent reasons" beyond his control, the court added.

 

"...practically all new/recent enactments are deviating from the prescribed period of limitation as per the Schedule of the Limitation Act and are generally prescribing its own period of limitation as under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act itself," the court said. At the same time, statutes provide that delay beyond a certain period cannot be condoned by the court, it said. "This is obviously in deviation to what is prescribed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act," the court added.

 

The court said there may be a situation where a litigant is facing proceedings by law enforcement agencies and is taken into custody and is unable to seek a legal remedy within the period of limitation prescribed. In such circumstances, the legislature ought not to confine condoning the delay only to a prescribed period, the court said. Instead, it should follow the principle of condoning the delay as enshrined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. "I, therefore, suggest to the lawmakers to keep this in mind while enacting new Acts and ensure that a uniform system is applied in all enactments, be it present or future," Justice Mithal said.

 

The apex court was hearing a case where My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court to challenge an arbitral award favouring Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. My Preferred Transformation had filed the case in the high court on Jul. 4, 2022. However, the three-month limitation period for filing the case expired on May 29, 2022. The high court was closed from Jun. 4, 2022, to Jul. 3, 2022, for the annual summer vacation.

 

The apex court dismissed My Preferred Transformation's case as the period of limitation for filing the case ended on a working day. It said the petitioners were not entitled to file the appeal after the court reopened following the vacation.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Rajeev Pai

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.