1. Suo Motu proceedings regarding the extension of limitation periods for filing legal proceedings across various courts and tribunals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., L. NAGESWARA RAO, SURYA KANT, JJ.
IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022, 665 OF 2021 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2022, 665 OF 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established is the authority of the Court to extend the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals due to exceptional circumstances such as the COVID19 pandemic.
Subject
Civil Law - Limitation Laws
Act Referred
Headnote
Limitation - COVID19 - The court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals due to the COVID19 pandemic, allowing 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.
Fact of the Case:
The Supreme Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals due to the COVID19 pandemic, allowing 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.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the application with directions to restore the order dated 23.03.2020 and exclude the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, leading to the decision to extend the period of limitation.
Final Decision: The Court directed the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation and allowed the withdrawal of another application.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv., Ms. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv., Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv., Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv., Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv., Dr. Aman M. Hingorani, Adv., Ms. Anzu Varkey, Adv., Mr. Aljo Joseph, Adv., Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv., Mr. Varinder K. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Mr. Prem Dave, Adv., Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv., Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr. Arjun Garg, Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv., Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Mr. P. I. Jose, Mr. Jenis V. Frensis, Adv., Mr. Prashant K. Sharma, Adv., Ms. Anindita Mitra, Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Mr. Subhro Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv., Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Adv., Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Adv., Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv., Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv., For M/s.Parekh & Co., M/S. VKC Law Offices, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Ms. Pratibha Jain, Sh. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv., Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv., Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv., Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv., Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv., Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv., Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv., Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv., Mr. Akash Singh, Adv., Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv., Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv., Ms. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv., Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Adv., Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv., Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv., Dr. Aman M. Hingorani, Adv., Ms. Anzu Varkey, Adv., Mr. Aljo Joseph, Adv., Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv., Mr. Varinder K. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Mr. Prem Dave, Adv., Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv.,
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv., Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv., Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr. Arjun Garg, Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv., Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Mr. P. I. Jose, Mr. Jenis V. Frensis, Adv., Mr. Prashant K. Sharma, Adv., Ms. Anindita Mitra, Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Mr. Subhro Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv., Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Adv., Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Adv., Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv., Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv., For M/s.Parekh & Co., M/S. VKC Law Offices, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Ms. Pratibha Jain, Sh. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv., Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv., Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv., Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv., Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv., Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv., Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv., Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv., Mr. Akash Singh, Adv., Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv., Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Request for restoration of previous orders to relax limitation periods due to the surge of new COVID-19 variants and resulting public health adversities. (Para 4 )
3. The court noted the impact of the virus surge on public health and the resulting adversities faced by litigants in filing proceedings. (Para 5 )
4. Limitation periods may be excluded and extended by the court to prevent litigants from being disadvantaged by extraordinary public health crises. (Para 5 )
5. Period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded for limitation; balance limitation available from 01.03.2022, with a minimum 90-day window for expired periods. (Para 5 )
6. How is the limitation period affected for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings during the specified COVID-19 period?
The period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded for the purposes of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. (Para 5 )
7. What happens to the balance period of limitation remaining as of 03.10.2021?
Any balance period of limitation remaining as of 03.10.2021 becomes available with effect from 01.03.2022. (Para 5 )
8. What is the remedy for litigants whose limitation period expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022?
Such persons are granted a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022, unless the actual balance period of limitation remaining with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days. (Para 5 )
9. Which specific statutes are covered by the exclusion of the limitation period?
The exclusion applies to Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic.
2. On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021.
3. Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 23.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021.
4. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocateson Record Association in the context of the spread of the new variant of the COVID19 and the drastic surge in the number of COVID cases across the country. Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following:
i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and
ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and
iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
