Supreme Court Annual Digest 2022- Limitation Act

Limitation - Suo Motu Order Extending Limitation - Even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021. (Para 2) Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Limitation - When the proceedings are required to be initiated within a particular period provided under the Statute, the same are required to be initiated within the said period. However, where no such period has been provided in the Statute, the authorities are required to initiate the said proceeding within a reasonable period. No doubt that what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 19) Union of India v. Citibank NA, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Limitation Act, 1963

Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal against Gauhati High Court judgment which held that the Limitation Act was applicable in the State of Mizoram and that Section 5 did not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Dismissed - The High Court rightly set-aside the impugned order of Trial Court holding that it could not have condoned the delay of 325 days in filing the Money Suit. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1963 - Limitation Act applicable in the State of Mizoram with effect from 21.01.1972. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Section 3 - Bar of limitation

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) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause - A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. (Para 17) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause - A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. (Para 17) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Section 4 - Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed.

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 4 - If the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application expires on day when the Court is considered 'closed', such proceedings may be instituted on the re -opening day - A day when the Court may not as such be closed in physical sense, it would be 'deemed' to be closed, if during any part of its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day for any particular proceedings or work. (Para 25.2.1) Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162 : AIR 2022 SC 946 : (2022) 5 SCC 112

Section 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - SLP Against High Court order which set aside the Trial Court order condoning delay of 465 days even after finding that delay has not been properly explained - Dismissed - Once it was found even by the trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay Condonation - When it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone delay is required to be dismissed - he Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds - Still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. (Para 5) Lingeswaran v. Thirunagalingam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 does not apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, even though the statutory provision may sometimes cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party. The Court has no choice, but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. F. Liansanga v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Act 1996. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5 : (2022) 4 SCC 162

Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5 : (2022) 4 SCC 162

Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court. (Para 12) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2022 SC 577

Section 12 - Exclusion of time in legal proceedings.

Limitation Act, 1963- Section 12, 29(2) - The period spent in obtaining the copy can be excluded in calculating the period of limitation to file matrimonial appeals under Family Courts Act - Nothing inconsistent in Section 12 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act - Section 20 will not override the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

Section 14 - Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14 - Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned - For exclusion of time under Section 14, the conditions stipulated in Section 14 have to be satisfied. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14, 18 - IBC does not exclude the application of Section 14 or 18 or any other provision of the Limitation Act. (Para 81) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648 : AIR 2022 SC 3559

Section 17 - Effect of fraud or mistake

Limitation Act 1963; Section 17 - By such a clever drafting and using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation-Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. (Para 7.8) C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822 : AIR 2022 SC 4724

Section 18 - Effect of acknowledgment in writing.

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Acknowledgment in writing of liability, signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed - Even if the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, evidence might be given of the time when it was signed - An acknowledgment may be sufficient even though it is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy or is coupled with claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right. 'Signed' is to be construed to mean signed personally or by an authorised agent. (Para 93) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648 : AIR 2022 SC 3559

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - As per Section 18 of Limitation Act, an acknowledgement of present subsisting liability, made in writing in respect of any right claimed by the opposite party and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, has the effect of commencing a fresh period of limitation from the date on which the acknowledgement is signed. Such acknowledgement need not be accompanied by a promise to pay expressly or even by implication. However, the acknowledgement must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. (Para 62) Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 673 : (2022) 9 SCC 364

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - Entries in Books of Account/Balance sheet of a company can be treated as acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable to a financial creditor. (Para 85) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 648 : AIR 2022 SC 3559

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 18 - The provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are not alien to and are applicable to proceedings under the IBC; and (ii) An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default. (Para 13) State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497 : 2022 (8) SCALE 253

Section 29 - Savings

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(3) - The word 'proceedings' within the meaning of Section 29(3) is to be confined to the original proceeding and not appellate proceedings. (Para 21, 24) N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 : 2022 (3) SCALE 275

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. (Para 48) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29(2) - Rule 30 of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 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) Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645

Article 54 - Specific Performance of a Contract

Limitation Act, 1961; Article 54 - Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides for two consequences based on the presence of fixed time period of performance. It is only in a case where the time period for performance is not fixed that the purchaser can take recourse to the notices issued and the vendors' reply thereto. (Para 37) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : AIR 2022 SC 5435

Article 109 - By a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father‟s alienation of ancestral property

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 109 - Article 109 is the special Article to apply where the alienation of the father is challenged by the son and the property is ancestral and the parties are governed by Mitakshara law - The word 'alienation' in this article includes 'gift' - In order to attract Article 109, the following conditions have to be fulfilled: 1) The parties must be Hindus governed by Mitakshara; (2) the suit is for setting aside the alienation by the father at the instance of the son; (3) the property relates to ancestral property; and (4) the alienee has taken over possession of the property alienated by the father. (Para 8 - 9) K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381 : 2022 (6) SCALE 315

Article 136 - Execution of any decree

Limitation Act, 1963; Article 136 - Article 136 applies only when an application for execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court is to be filed. (Para 20) Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 810 : AIR 2022 SC 5058

Article 137. Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division.

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation Act would apply to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the IBC. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2022) 7 SCC 164

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Limitation does not commence when the debt becomes due but only when a default occurs. As noted earlier in the judgment, default is defined under Section 3(12) of the IBC as the non -payment of the debt by the corporate debtor when it has become due. (Para 59) Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. v. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129 : (2022) 7 SCC 164