Tag: Limitation Act

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...
Read More
Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground
15Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground

The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an NCLT order under the IBC must be filed within 30 days from the date of its pronouncement. It reiterated that mandatory filing of a certified copy of the impugned order is integral to a valid appeal, and non-compliance renders the appeal barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor. The respondent, DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the NCLT's decision. The ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...
Read More
Clarifying Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Exclusive Power of MP Arbitration Tribunal for Public Works
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Clarifying Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Exclusive Power of MP Arbitration Tribunal for Public Works

The Supreme Court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal over disputes arising from state works contracts, as per the MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It ruled that a private arbitration clause in a concession agreement cannot override this statutory mandate, rendering such arbitration non-est in law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Concession Agreement dated 05.01.2012 between Umri Pooph Pratappur Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (Respondent) for the development of a state highway on a BOT (Toll + Annuity) basis. Following alleged breaches and delays attributed to the Respondent, the Appellant first initiated proceedings in 2018 before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, a s...
Read More
Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC

The Supreme Court held that entries in a company’s balance sheet, when read in the context of surrounding circumstances and previous financial statements, can constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The Court clarified that the exclusion period under its COVID-19 limitation order applied from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the application timely. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., extended a term loan of ₹30 crores to the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., on 27.02.2015, secured by a pledge of shares. The respondent's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.03.2018. The appellant fi...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings, allowing time-barred claims to be referred for settlement. However, the Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3), as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, incorporates the Limitation Act into such arbitrations. The Court emphasized that the MSMED Act’s provisions override general laws, ensuring a balanced approach to dispute resolution while protecting suppliers' rights. The disclosure of unpaid amounts in financial statements under Section 22 may extend limitation periods, subject to case-specific scrutiny. Facts Of The...
Read More
Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Res Judicata & Limitation Apply Even if Court Grants Liberty

The Supreme Court held that the liberty granted by the High Court to file a fresh suit does not revive a time-barred cause of action or override the principles of res judicata. The Court affirmed that limitation under the Limitation Act and Order 23 Rule 2 CPC applies strictly, and a fresh suit cannot re-agitate issues already decided in prior proceedings. The judgment reinforces that judicial liberty cannot circumvent statutory bars or reopen conclusively adjudicated matters. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property transaction where the original plaintiff (predecessor of the petitioners) had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant, a cooperative housing society. A Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favor of the society’s secretary (second defen...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Execution Petition: No Time Limit for Enforcing Permanent Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled that a decree of permanent injunction creates a perpetual right enforceable at any time against future breaches, clarifying that satisfaction recorded in one execution petition doesn't bar subsequent petitions under Section 47 CPC for fresh violations. It held that Article 136 of the Limitation Act imposes no time limit for enforcing perpetual injunctions, rejecting the erroneous application of res judicata by lower courts. The judgment emphasizes that each breach of injunction constitutes a fresh cause of action, requiring executing courts to examine subsequent execution petitions on merits regardless of prior disposals. The Court distinguished between temporary and permanent injunctions while underscoring the continuing nature of injunctive relief. Facts Of The C...
Read More