Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka 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