Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Stanford Laboratories Private Limited – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17298 of 2021 (Arising Out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-04-2021 in AN No. 2056 of 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
Decided On : 04-01-2022
Extension of Limitation Period - Written Statement - [High Court] - [Limitation Act, Section 5] - The court found that the High Court did not commit any error in extending the period of limitation for filing the written statement. The court also held that the period of limitation could be extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court, even up to a specific date. Therefore, the court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and vacated the interim order.
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the High Court did not commit any error in extending the period of limitation for filing the written statement and consequently taking on record the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-original defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court did not commit any error in extending the period of limitation for filing the written statement and consequently taking on record the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-original defendant.
Issues: The issue was whether the High Court committed an error in extending the period of limitation for filing the written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the High Court did not commit any error in extending the period of limitation for filing the written statement and that the period of limitation could be extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court, even up to a specific date.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the interim order passed by the Court was vacated. Pending applications were disposed of.
ORDER
1. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed any error in extending the period of limitation in filing the written statement and consequently taking on record the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-original defendant.
2. Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders 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.
3. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.
4. Pending applications stand disposed of.
The court's decision emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
The exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, in....
The court's discretion in entertaining petitions and the importance of expeditious appeal decisions by the High Court
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order, emphasizing that the appeal process must be respected and that stay applications may be renewed at the appropriate level.
Dismissal of review petition due to delay in preferring special leave petitions without satisfactory explanation.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the amnesty period granted by the Supreme Court for filing various pleadings and held that there was no valid reason to refuse to take the written s....
The court's decision not to interfere in the impugned judgment and the specific observations regarding the learned Single Judge's remarks.
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
