Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High Court

In the absence of a specified limitation period – Appeal Must be Filed Within Reasonable Time: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment providing crucial clarity on the limitation period for appeals under special statutes. The case, M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/S Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr., has far-reaching implications for appeals arising from unique statutory frameworks.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, unequivocally stated that the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, does not fall under the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court clarified that appeals under this Act, arising from orders of the Commissioner of Payments, cannot be categorized as appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The judgment highlighted the unique nature of the appeal procedure provided in the Jogighopa Act. It emphasized that the Act allows for a Judge of the High Court to serve as the Commissioner of Payments and then explicitly provides for appeals to be filed from their orders. This distinct appeal mechanism underscores the Act’s sui generis character.

In the absence of a specified limitation period, the Supreme Court ruled that appeals must adhere to the principle of “reasonable time.” The court stressed that determining what constitutes a reasonable time depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the court found that the Claimant-Appellants had filed their appeal before the District Judge well within the bounds of reasonable time.

Date -11-Dec-23

M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.& ANR. VS M/S ASHOK PAPER  MILL(ASSAM) LTD. & ANR.       

 

Latest Legal News