Claims For Recovery Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Supported By Probable Evidence; Exaggerated Claims Unsafe: Kerala High Court Naib Tahsildar Performing Quasi-Judicial Duties Is A 'Judge', Protected From Disciplinary Action For Bonafide Errors: Madhya Pradesh High Court Purchaser Estopped From Refusing Delivery Or Payment Of Statutory Taxes After Participating In Machinery Trial Runs: Madras High Court Presumption Of Marriage From Aadhaar, Passports Is Rebuttable; Long Silence Dislodges Marital Claim: Kerala High Court Government Cannot Deny Promotional Benefits To Employee Who Assumes Charge On The Date Of Superannuation: Karnataka High Court Disproportionate Assets 608% More Than Salary Establish 'Proceeds Of Crime' Prima Facie; No Mini-Trial At Discharge Stage: Jharkhand High Court Decree Based On 'Evasive Denial' Improper If Defendant Raises Specific Defenses Going To Root Of Case: J&K & Ladakh High Court Trial Courts Cannot Adjourn Ad-Interim Injunction Petitions For Months While Ordering 'Urgent Notice': Andhra Pradesh High Court Agent Of Court Receiver Who Breaches Undertaking On Nature Of Business Not Entitled To Occupy Premises Without Paying Royalty: Bombay High Court Criminal Antecedents Of A Witness Do Not Operate As Disqualification, Testimony To Be Assessed With Caution Not Suspicion: Calcutta High Court Bar On Raising Benami Defense Under Section 4 Applies To All Suits Filed After 1988 Act, Even For Past Transactions: Allahabad High Court Article 21 Can Trump UAPA Bail Restrictions In Cases Of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Activist Khuram Parvez Mere Possession Of Jihad Literature Not An Offence; Cannot Be Tagged With Terrorism Without Evidence Of Criminal Act: Telangana 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