'Order Extending Limitation Due To COVID19 Still Operative': Supreme Court Directs NCDRC To Take On Record A Written Statement Filed Belatedly

The Supreme Court observed that its order of 23rd March 2020 extending limitation for filing in courts and tribunals is still operative.

The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat observed thus while setting aside an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which declined to take a written statement on the ground that it has has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond 45 days.

The court noted that, in this case, the period of 30 days to file written statement expired on 12.08.2020 and extended period of 15 days expired on 27.08.2020 and the same was filed only thereafter. It is true that the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.,(2020) 5 SCC 757 clearly provides that no written statement is to be allowed to be filed beyond the period of 45 days as per Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench noted.

However, the bench referred to its order dated 23.3.2020 passed by it in Suo Motu Writ Petition "Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" in which it was ordered thus: "To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings."

The bench, therefore, observed that the limitation for filing the written statement in the present proceedings before the National Commission would be deemed to have been extended as it is clear from the order dated 23.03.2020 that the extended period of limitation was applicable to all petitions/ applications/suits/appeals and all other proceedings. The bench observed: 

"The above order is still operative and by subsequent orders, the scope has been enlarged so that the said order applies in other proceedings also. In the present matter, it is an admitted fact that the period of limitation of 30 days to file the written statement had expired on 12.08.2020 and the extended period of 15 days expired on 27.08.2020. This period expired when the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Court in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 was continuing... As such, the delay of four days in filing the written statements in the pending proceedings before the National Commission deserves to be allowed, and is accordingly allowed."

Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the commission to take on record the the written statement filed by the appellant shall be taken on record;

23rd March 2020 Order and Subsequent Orders

"To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings", the bench comprising CJI S A Bobde, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant had observed in its 23rd March Order passed by invoking the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

On April 6, the Court extended the application of the order to proceedings under Arbitration Act and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On July 10, the court applied this suo moto order extending limitation for filing of cases to Section 29A and 23(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

On 18th September, the CJI led bench clarified that the said order extended only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The Court held that the expression "prescribed period" appearing in Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation

CASE: M/s. SS GROUP PVT. LTD. vs. AADITIYA J. GARG & ANR. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.4085 OF 2020] 

CORAM: Justices Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat

COUNSEL: Adv Sanjay K. Shandilya, Adv Naveen Kumar

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order