No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

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