Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M/S Ashok Paper Mill(Assam) Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2669 of 2013
Decided On : 11-12-2023
(A) Limitation Act 1963 – Section 5 – Period of limitation – When a Court is seized of a situation where no limitation stands provided either by specific applicability of Limitation Act or special statute governing the dispute, Court must undertake a holistic assessment of facts and circumstances of case to examine possibility of delay causing prejudice to a party – When no limitation stands prescribed it would be inappropriate for Court to supplant legislature’ s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation, more so in accordance with what it believes to be appropriate period – Court should, in such a situation consider in facts and circumstances of case at hand, conduct of parties, nature of proceeding, length of delay, possibility of prejudice being caused, and scheme of statute in question – When a party to a dispute raises a plea of delay despite no specific period being prescribed in statute, such a party also bears burden of demonstrating how delay in itself would cause the party additional prejudice or loss as opposed to, claim subject matter of dispute, being raised at an earlier point in time. (Para 25)
(B) Limitation Act 1963 – Article 116 – Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – Applicability of Article 116 of Limitation Act to Act, 1990 – Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as appeal thereunder, from an order of Commissioner of payments cannot be said to be an appeal under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – In absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file appeal, same would be governed by principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per facts and circumstances of each case – Claimant-Appellants cannot be said to have transgressed boundaries of reasonable time in filing their appeal before District Judge – Claimant-Appellants’ appeal cannot be said to be barred by time--Same would be maintainable. (Paras 29, 30.1, 30.2 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Questions to be determined in this lis are:
A) Whether Article 116 of Limitation Act 1963, applies to proceedings under Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990.
B) Contingently, if Limitation Act does not apply then, in absence of Limitation being placed within the text of Statute in question, could the Appeal filed against the Order of Commissioner of Payments be held as maintainable having been filed after a period of nearly three years from said order?
Findings of Court:
File is restored to the docket of concerned District Judge for him to proceed in accordance with law and in light of discussions made herein. Same be decided possibly within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this judgment and order is received by the District Judge, as is necessitated by attending facts and circumstances.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. The questions to be determined in this lis are:
B) Contingently, if the Limitation Act does not apply then, in the absence of Limitation being placed within the text of the Statute in question, could the Appeal filed against the Order of the Commissioner of Payments be held as maintainable having been filed after a period of nearly three years from the said order?
THE APPEAL
2. This Civil Appeal assails a judgement of the Gauhati High Court passed in CRP No. 263 of 2009 dated 21 July 2011, by which the Civil Revision Petition against the Order dated 14 May 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati in M.A Case No. 18/2008 stands allowed.
BACKGROUND OF FACTS AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. The Claimant-Appellants1[Respondents before the High Court. Hereinafter referred to as Claimant-Appellant.] and Respondents2[Review Petitioner before the High Court] are both companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant had received Orders to supply certain goods to the Respondents. After doing so, they raised certain bills which were only partly paid by the Respondents.
3.1 Subsequently, the Respondents was declared “a sick company” under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1935. For the necessitated rejuvenation of the industry, the Government of Assam promulgated the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 19903[Hereinafter referred to as the Jogighopa Act].
3.2 The Appellant filed its claim under Section 16 of the Jogighopa Act for a sum of 1,58,375/- along with interest-against which the Commissioner of Payments awarded4[In Claim Case No. CP/Cat.VI/91/153. By Order dated 30 October 1994] the principle sum but no interest. The award of such amount was communicated to the Claimant - Appellants vide forwarding letter dated 16 July 19975[Not on record. The date of such forwarding letter is as reflected in Appellants’ response thereto.]. By letter dated 16 July 19976[Bearing Ref- NECIL/97-98], the Claimant - Appellants, under protest, accepted the payment of principal amount in full. They raised grievance in respect of non-payment of any interest for the periods of January 1983 to March 1993 and from March 1993 to the date of payment, i.e., 16 July 1997. In such letter, the total amount of interest claimed was 21,49, 698/-at 18% interest per annum.
3.3 Aggrieved by the non-payment of such interest claimed, a Writ Petition7[Bearing No. 4210 of 1997. Order Dated 10 November 1997] before the High Court was filed seeking direction to the Commissioner to consider an award interest on the principal amount due. Such a request without adjudication of rights of the parties was acceded to by the High with a direction to consider the claims within a period of 3 months.
3.4 The Commissioner upon consideration of the request for grant of interest on delayed payment, amounting to 6,83,688/-8[Made vide letter dated 9 August 2001 by Managing Director of the Appellant. The same is not on record. The record does show a representation dated 9 May 2001 in which the claim of interest on delayed payment is worth 15, 93,957. However, the Commissioner’s letter of award records that to have been an error in calculation.] granted the same. Still aggrieved thereby, the claimants once again knocked the doors of the High Court9[Writ Petition No. 4520 of 2002. Order dated 19 May 2004].
3.5 In such proceedings, the High Court in observing that the entitlement of interest of the claimant company could not be questioned, referred the matter back to the Commissioner of Payments to calculate the interest payable afresh, in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small-Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act 199310[For short, “the 19
Section 4 of Limitation Act applies only to 30-day prescribed period under IBC Section 61(2), not 15-day condonable period; vacation benefit unavailable if commencing after 30 days, rendering appeals....
Assessment – Condonation of Delay in filing Appeal - Appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the aggregate period of limitation - statutory appeal was barred by limitation, t....
The Act of 2016 does not provide for the applicability of any provision of the Limitation Act, including Sec. 5, which would empower Respondent No.3 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
The provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, apply to appeals under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, allowing for delay condonation if sufficient cause is shown.
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing affidavits unless expressly excluded.
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.
Limitation for IBC appeal under Section 61 commences from NCLT order's open court pronouncement date in parties' presence, not portal upload; delay beyond 45 days non-condonable regardless of certifi....
The Limitation Act does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies, and the Appellate Authority cannot condone delay in the absence of specific provisions under the Employees State Insurance Act.
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
