Supreme Court Calls For Uniform Limitation Periods Across Statutes, Greater Flexibility To Courts For Condoning Delays

The Supreme Court in a judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal called for legislative reforms to ensure uniform limitation periods across statutes, enabling courts to condone delays beyond rigid limits in cases where sufficient cause is shown.“In my personal opinion, the statutes ought not to provide different period of limitation for instituting suit, preferring appeal and making an application, rather all statutes should stick to a uniform period of limitation say 90 days for preferring Special Leave Petition/Appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The courts should also be empowered to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown for not filing it within the time prescribed rather than restricting the condonable period to a fix period of 15 days or 30 days as provided in some of the statutes”, he noted.Justice Mithal highlighted that statutes like the Arbitration Act prescribe specific limitation periods, often deviating from the general framework under the Limitation Act. He expressed concern about this practice, stating that it creates confusion and can result in litigants losing their remedies.“This deviation and restriction create confusion and ordinarily even a lawyer at times fails to notice that a different period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring an appeal under a particular statute. Moreover, there may be genuine cases where the litigant may not be able to approach the court in time for cogent reasons beyond his control”, Justice Mithal highlighted.He illustrated potential hardships caused by the existing framework, such as situations in which litigants, due to circumstances like serious illness or detention by law enforcement agencies, may be unable to file petitions within prescribed limitation periods.“In such circumstances, in my opinion, the legislature ought not to confine condoning the delay only for a prescribed period and not beyond it. Rather it should follow the principle of condoning the delay as enshrined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This would not only avoid a good case to be thrown out on the ground of limitation but at the same time would bring about uniformity in law. I, therefore, suggest to the law makers to keep this in mind while enacting new Acts and ensure that uniform system is applied in all enactments, be it present or future”, he observed.A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed an appeal filed by a company against a Delhi High Court judgment rejecting its challenge to an arbitral award as barred by limitation under Section 34.In his judgment, Justice Narasimha raised concerns about the interpretation of limitation statutes in arbitration cases and observed that the rigid application of the law could curtail the limited remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge arbitral awards. He suggested that legislative intervention might be necessary to address these concerns. Justice Mithal provided a separate concurring judgment. Justice Mithal noted that the arbitral award was passed on February 4, 2022, and the appellants received a signed hard copy of the award on February 14, 2022. Under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the limitation period for filing a petition is three months, which expired on May 14, 2022. Due to the Supreme Court's order extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic, the deadline was extended to May 29, 2022. However, the appellants filed the petition on July 4, 2022, after the summer vacation of the Delhi High Court, with a delay condonation application.The High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay. Justice Mithal stated that the limitation period, with the extension due to COVID-19, expired on May 29, 2022, a working day. Since the limitation period did not expire on a day when the court was closed, the appellants could not invoke Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which allows filing on the next working day when the limitation period ends on a holiday.Justice Mithal also held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides a similar provision for filing on the reopening of courts after closure, was not applicable as its proviso explicitly excludes its application to proceedings governed by the Limitation Act, which applies to arbitration proceedings.Justice Mithal clarified the distinction between the prescribed limitation period and the condonable period, stating that the latter cannot be treated as part of the former. “The period of limitation prescribed for instituting a suit or filing an appeal or making an application has to be distinguished from a condonable period which cannot be made part of the period of limitation prescribed”, he observed. He emphasized that the petition, filed after the condonable period of 30 days, was patently time-barred.Case no. – My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd.Case Title – Civil Appeal No. 336 of...

Supreme Court Calls For Uniform Limitation Periods Across Statutes, Greater Flexibility To Courts For Condoning Delays

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Supreme Court Calls For Uniform Limitation Periods Across Statutes, Greater Flexibility To Courts For Condoning Delays

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers