Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, CJI., DEEPAK GUPTA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
In Re : Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation
Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No.3 of 2020, IA No.48411/2020 - Appropriate Orders/Directions, IA No.48375/2020 - Clarification/Direction, IA No.48511/2020 - Clarification/Direction, IA No.48461/2020 - Clarification/Direction, IA No.48374/2020 - Intervention Application, IA No.48416/2020 - Intervention Application, IA No.48408/2020 - Intervention Application, I.A No.……… OF 2020-Filed By Mr. Narayan VASUDEO MARATHE, Applicant-In-Person
Decided on : 06-05-2020
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Extension of Limitation Period - COVID-19
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application for directions seeking extension of limitation periods for arbitration proceedings under section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and for proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 due to the impact of COVID-19.
Finding of the Court:
The Court, considering the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and the difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants, ordered the extension of all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 from 15.03.2020 till further orders. It also provided for an extension of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown for cases where the limitation had expired after 15.03.2020.
Issues: Extension of limitation periods for arbitration and negotiable instruments proceedings due to COVID-19 impact.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants, aiming to obviate such difficulties and ensure access to justice without physical presence in courts/tribunals.
Final Decision: The interlocutory application for directions was disposed of, and notices were issued for other related applications and to the respondents.
ORDER :
IA No.48411/2020 – FOR DIRECTIONS
1. By way of filing this application for directions, the applicant has made the following prayer :
2. In view of this Court’s earlier order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 and taking into consideration the effect of the Corona Virus (COVID 19) and resultant difficulties being faced by the lawyers and litigants and with a view to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunal across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
3. In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown.
4. In view of the above, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of.
5. Issue notice.
6. Waive service on behalf of the respondent – Union of India since Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appear on its behalf.
7. Let notice be issued to other respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
