Back
Next 
judgement
2024-06-23
Subject: Criminal Law - Financial Crimes
This case involves an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019. The appellants, a private limited company and its managing director and director, challenged a court order that allowed the Competent Authority to confirm the provisional order of attachment and sell the attached properties of the company.
The appellants argued that the Competent Authority's petition for confirmation of the attachment and permission to sell the properties was filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed under the BUDS Act. They contended that the delay could not be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the BUDS Act's provisions for extension of the limitation period were exclusive.
The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be applicable to the proceedings under the BUDS Act, as the Act did not expressly exclude its application.
The court examined the relevant case law on the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to special statutes with their own provisions for extension of the limitation period. The court found that when a special statute, like the BUDS Act, provides for a specific period of limitation and a mechanism for its extension, the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is generally excluded.
The court held that the BUDS Act's provision in Section 14(1) for extending the 30-day limitation period up to 60 days was intended to be the exclusive mechanism for extension, thereby excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court allowed the appeal, holding that the delay in filing the Competent Authority's petition for confirmation of the attachment and permission to sell the properties could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court directed the Special Court to dismiss the Competent Authority's petition on the ground of limitation.
The court clarified that the dismissal of the Competent Authority's petition was solely on the ground of limitation and did not preclude the Competent Authority from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
The provisions of Section 14(1) of the BUDS Act exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, meaning that any delay in filing for confirmation of attachment beyond the specified period....
A party must provide substantial and convincing evidence to support a claim for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits and highlighted the impermissibility of condoning delay without notice to the opposite party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a special Act itself provides for a limitation period and an extended period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot b....
The court reinforced that the burden of proving sufficient cause for delay lies with the appellant, and ignorance of a judgment is insufficient for condonation.
Appeal against acquittal – Benefit of Section 5 read with Sections 2 and 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal.
Court's discretion to evaluate delay explanation under Limitation Act upheld, emphasizing sufficiency of cause over mere length of delay.
The appellate authority under the APGST Act cannot condone delays beyond the one-month limit specified in Section 107(4), excluding broader provisions of the Limitation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the language of Section 378(5) of the CrPC did not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and thus, the court....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
