Provisions Of Limitation Act Has No Application When A Statute Extinguishes The Right Itself: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Limitation Act will not have apply when a Statute extinguishes the right itself.

The distinction between barring a remedy as exception is well established, the bench observed in a judgment in which it dealt with the Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.

The Rule 30 provides that the right to damages will be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.

In this case, the Trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation as the period prescribed in Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 could be calculated from 28.10.2010, that is, the date when the Respondent had acknowledged a proposed settlement of the claim at 50% of the demand. For this purpose, Section 18 of the Limitation Act was relied on. Allowing the appeal, the Bombay High Court held that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the same. 

While considering the appeal against this judgment, the bench discussed the applicability of the Limitation Act when the right itself is extinguished, as against a barring of remedy, as in the case of Section 3 of Limitation Act.

"The procedural law governing the institution and adjudication of civil suits in India includes the Civil Procedure Code,1908 as well as the Limitation Act, 1963. The Limitation Act is a branch of adjectival law, and applies to all proceedings which it governs from the date of its enactment. There is however a well-established principle, which states that when the right itself is extinguished, the provisions relating to limitation have no application."

As illustrations of provisions where the right itself is extinguished, the bench referred to Section 11 as well as Section 27 of the Limitation Act.

Section 11 deals with suits filed in India with respect to contracts entered in foreign countries. Following the Principle of lex fori, the Section provides that rules of limitation provided in a foreign jurisdiction are not applicable. However, the exception to this Rule is provided in Section 11 (2)(a), when the Contract i.e., the right itself expires. Similarly, Section 27 also recognizes the principle of extinguishment of Right to Property being an exception to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963

Noticing this principle, the bench referred to Rule 30 and observed:

Once the right to damages is extinguished upon the expiry of two years reckoned from the three alternative dates mentioned in the Rule itself, nothing would remain for enforcement. Section 3 of the Limitation Act only bars the remedy, but when the right itself is extinguished, provisions of the Limitation Act have no application. For this reason, in The East and West Steamship Co., this Court held that once the right of liability is extinguished under the clause, there is no scope of acknowledging the liability thereafter.

The bench then noticed Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 30: - "(2) The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seized of the case." In its plain and simple language, Sub-Rule (2) seems to adopt the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 as Courts in India exercise jurisdiction, the bench observed. Thus it considered another issue raised whether whether the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 expressly exclude the Limitation Act, 1963 as provided in Section 29 and answered it in the affirmative.

Also read: Carriage by Air Act 'Expressly Excludes' Provisions Of Limitation Act : Supreme Court

 Case details

Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani vs British Airways | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645 | CA 4978 of 2022 | 29 July 2022 | Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha

Counsel : Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, assisted by Adv Pravartak Pathak, Adv Gwen Karthika, AOR Abha R. Sharma, for the Appellants and Adv Ritu Singh Mann for Respondent assisted by Adv Dheeraj K. Garg and AOR Rajan K. Chourasia

Headnotes

Carriage by Air Act, 1972 ; Rule 30 - Limitation Act, 1963 ; Section 29(2)- Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act as provided in Section 29 - Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years (Para 43)

Limitation Act, 1963 ; Section 29(2) - Express empowerment is to be gathered from the provisions of the statute - Even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation - Referred to Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 (Para 48)

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 only bars the remedy, but when the right itself is extinguished, provisions of the Limitation Act have no application. (Para 15.2)

Interpretation of Statutes - Municipal laws giving effect to International Conventions - Courts of law must endeavor to maintain a uniformity of interpretation with courts of other jurisdictions while interpreting international treaties and conventions. (Para 29)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment