Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The Supreme Court's orders and judicial decisions during the pandemic period have effectively exempted or extended limitations, including acknowledgment-based exceptions, making acknowledgment during COVID-19 period generally not a bar to filing claims or suits ["K.murugan vs R.Mohanasundaram - Madras"], ["HOARE & CO. v. RAJARATNAM"].
Main points and insights:
The recognition of acknowledgment as a means to revive claims remains valid, but the context of COVID-19 has led courts to interpret and extend limitations flexibly.
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["HOARE & CO. v. RAJARATNAM"]- ["Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society VS Union of India - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society VS Union of India - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["K.murugan vs R.Mohanasundaram - Madras"]- ["INDHC_HCBM020047012021"]- ["VAMSHI RUBBER LIMITED VS INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENTAGENCY LIMITED - National Company Law Tribunal"]- ["SURYA .A vs SRI. ALEX VARGHESE - Kerala"]- ["SURYA .A vs SRI. ALEX VARGHESE - Kerala"]
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted nearly every aspect of life, including legal proceedings and timelines. One pressing question for debtors, creditors, and legal practitioners has been: if acknowledgment done during the corona period whether it is exempted under supreme court case limitations? This issue hinges on how the addressed amid the crisis. Generally, acknowledgments made between and may be protected from limitation bars, thanks to the Court's . This post breaks down the legal framework, key rulings, and practical implications.
Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under , an in writing, signed by the party against whom it is used, can extend the limitation period for filing a suit. This fresh start for the limitation clock is crucial in recovery suits or enforcement actions. However, the acknowledgment must typically occur before the original limitation expires. The pandemic raised unique challenges: Did COVID-19 disruptions affect this rule?
The Supreme Court recognized the extraordinary circumstances, issuing orders that excluded specific periods from limitation computations. This generally shields acts like acknowledgments performed during the lockdown era from being time-barred. As clarified in key rulings, the period from to shall stand excluded in computing limitation for all proceedings .
In response to the pandemic, the Supreme Court took via Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. Starting with the order dated , the Court extended indefinitely from onward . This was reiterated and refined over time:
These directives apply broadly to all proceedings, meaning acknowledgments falling within this timeframe are typically immune from limitation challenges. For instance, in a related appellate context, courts have noted that the entire period falls within the Corona related limitation moratorium period granted by the Supreme Court . This reinforces the exemption's scope.
If an acknowledgment was made between and :
This has significant implications for debt recovery, loan agreements, and commercial disputes. Creditors can rely on pandemic-era acknowledgments to pursue claims that might otherwise be time-barred. Conversely, debtors should document such acts meticulously.
Supporting this, the Supreme Court's framework ensures are to be excluded during the pandemic, including acts like acknowledgment, reinforcing immunity from during this period .
While broadly protective, the exemption isn't absolute:
Other cases highlight general principles: Acknowledgments must be signed by the liable party and made before limitation expires , emphasizing that pandemic relief doesn't override core Section 18 tenets.
Lower courts and tribunals have applied these principles variably:
These illustrate how courts balance pandemic relief with Limitation Act rigor, often referencing Supreme Court orders for exclusions.
To leverage this exemption:
Parties dealing with legacy debts from the pandemic should review timelines promptly.
The COVID-19 era reshaped limitation law, offering a lifeline for timely acts. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence to protect your interests.
#COVIDLimitation #SupremeCourt #LimitationAct
p. 367.], "I agree, that to take a case out of the statute, there must be a promise or acknowledgment in writing, and I doubt whether the Act meant two different things when it said ' promise or acknowledgment'". ... The plaint did not set out, as it should have done under the provisions of section 44 of the Civil Procedure Code, the ground upon which the exemption from the bar of lapse of time was claimed, but, at the opening of the case on the day of trial in the lower #HL_START....
The case of the petitioners is that during the period from around January, 2020 and there onwards, the presence of corona virus came to be detected in the country and a notification came to be issued in March, 2020 by the competent authority under National Disaster Management Act whereby the rampaging ... Thus, it can be safely inferred that the Hon’ble Apex Court taking suomotu cognizance of the effect and impact of the covid-19 has extended the limitations for a period of 90 days eff....
The case of the petitioners is that during the period from around January, 2020 and there onwards, the presence of corona virus came to be detected in the country and a notification came to be issued in March, 2020 by the competent authority under National Disaster Management Act whereby the rampaging ... Thus, it can be safely inferred that the Hon’ble Apex Court taking suo motu cognizance of the effect and impact of the covid-19 has extended the limitations for a period of 90 days ef....
Corona Remedies is admittedly a non-user for this period of time. ... Paragraph 50 of the case makes this very clear. ... For these reasons, the Supreme Court held that there was not the slightest possibility of confusion or deception. ... Mr Khera relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in proprietor of a trade mark has exclusivity over the mark, but subject p style="position
In granting summary judgment as to liability on the first cause of action (relating to discharges in violation of “effluent limitations”), the district court placed loadbearing weight on its (arguably erroneous) view that, to prevail on the issue of whether Corona had exceeded the relevant effluent limitations ... have expressly not done so vis-à-vis the second cause of action. ... On Claims One and Five, the district court found Corona had committed....
In granting summary judgment as to liability on the first cause of action (relating to discharges in violation of “effluent limitations”), the district court placed loadbearing weight on its (arguably erroneous) view that, to prevail on the issue of whether Corona had exceeded the relevant effluent limitations ... CORONA CLAY this case, the Supreme Court held that an NPDES permit is required only when discharge from a point source f....
There is still the question of whether the High Court had properly examined and appreciated the facts presented in the Industrial Court . ... See the Federal Court case of Norizan Bakar v. Panzana Enterprise Sdn Bhd; [2014] 1 MELR 1; [2013] 6 MLJ 605; [2013] 9 CLJ 409; [2013] 6 AMR 338. ... [12] A relevant consideration is whether a reasonable tribunal, similarly circumstanced, would have arrived at the decision in question. This was observed by the Federal Court#HL_E....
The CPIO is exempted on account of the CIC’s circular no. CIC/Legal/Corona/2020/32 dated 16-03-2020. 2. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned. ... He further submitted that the Appellant has personally collected a copy of his service register and leave account, running upto 160 pages on 26.09.2019 and has also subscribed his signature as acknowledgment. ... Due to prevailing circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic and absence of parties, no hearing could be conducted in this case for its final disposa....
This Court in Bishal Jaiswal (supra) held that entries in Balance Sheet had to be examined on a case-by-case basis to examine whether an acknowledgment of liability exists. Para 35 of Bishal Jaiswal (supra) reads as under: - “35. ... In Bishal Jaiswal (supra), this Court held that a case-to-case examination will be made with regard to entries made in Balance sheets to decide the question of acknowledgment. ... Further, in terms of ....
A specific paragraph is found in the plaint at IX, stating that the period of limitation was exempted due to pandemic caused by Corona virus from 22.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Taking cognizance of that, the learned Judge should have numbered the plaint. ... Series of orders were passed by the Supreme Court taking into consideration the pandemic caused due to the Corona virus. The said verdict is binding on all Courts, including the Courts in Erode. ... The Supreme #HL_STA....
5. We notice that the appeal has been filed with delay, upon which the State has also filed an application for condonation of delay. However, the entire period falls within the Corona related limitation moratorium period granted by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the dismissal of the Appeal on this ground is not justifiable and order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that there were sufficient reasons which prevented the Petitioners from filing the Appeal within the limitation. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Suo Moto in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, has extended the period of limitation during the corona period. It is submitted that in view of this, the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay.
8 Supreme 9, wherein it has been observed, the fact of acknowledgment in writing would be extension of period of limitation for filing suit. He further relied on the decision in Swarnam Ramchandran (Smt) and another vs. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan, (2004) 8 SCC 689: (2004) 6 Supreme 385., wherein it has been held that - Assam State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited and ohers, (2004) 12 SCC 360: (2004)
In view thereof, the questions framed above are answered in favour of the appellants. In the present case, it is admitted position on the record that the acknowledgment is not signed by any defendants-appellants and the acknowledgment, if any, is beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is ordered to be dismissed.
I may here successfully quote the following observations of the Supreme Court appearing in the decision of the case between Sampuran Singh and others v. Smt. Niranjan Kaur and others reported as AIR 1999 SC 1047 : Thus, the acknowledgment, if any, has to be prior to the expiration of the prescribed period for filing the suit in other words, if the limitation has already expired, it would not revive under this Section. It is only during subsistence of a period of limitation, if any, such document is executed, the limitation would be revived afresh from the said date of ackno....
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
