Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

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