Read Time: 09 minutes
SC bench said in the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case
The Supreme Court has said that when a court is seized of a situation where no limitation stands provided either by specific applicability of the Limitation Act or the special statute governing the dispute, the court must undertake a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case to examine the possibility of delay causing prejudice to a party.
"When no limitation stands prescribed it would be inappropriate for a court to supplant the legislature’s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation, more so in accordance with what it believes to be the appropriate period," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol said.
The bench explained, a court should, in such a situation consider in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the proceeding, the length of delay, the possibility of prejudice being caused, and the scheme of the statute in question.
"It may be underscored here that when a party to a dispute raises a plea of delay despite no specific period being prescribed in the statute, such a party also bears the burden of demonstrating how the delay in itself would cause the party additional prejudice or loss as opposed to, the claim subject matter of dispute, being raised at an earlier point in time," the bench said.
The court here allowed an appeal by M/s North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd as their plea for interest payment on sum for the certain goods supplied to M/s Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd and another was held to be time barred.
"In the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case," the bench said.
As the respondent was declared a sick company, the Assam government promulgated the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990.
Going by the statutory scheme, the bench said the state legislature was conscious of the aspect of limitation and has categorically therefore, prescribed periods for claims to be made so as to not leave open the possibility of a claim, indefinitely. Crucially, however, the legislature omitted placing any period of limitation when it came to Section 22 (8) of the Act, which stated that in case the Commissioner under the Jogighopa Act is a Judge of a High Court, then an appeal from an order of such Commissioner shall lie before no less than two Judges of the High Court.
"We find Section 22 (8) of the Jogighopa Act cannot be said to be an appeal under the code governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act. The conclusion which beckons then is that the period of limitation mentioned under such article of the Limitation Act shall not apply to Section 22 (8) of the Jogighopa Act," the bench said.
The bench accepted the Gauhati HC's reliance upon the SC's judgment in 'Vidyacharan Shukla v Khubchand Baghel & Ors' (Five-Judges Bench) (1964) as misplaced.
"When a statute, either general or specific in application, provides for a limitation within which to file an appeal, the parties interested in doing so are put to notice of the requirement to act with expedition. However, opposite thereto, in cases such as the present one where neither statute provides for an explicit limitation, such urgency may be absent. While it is still true that, as held in 'Ajaib Singh v Sirhind Coop Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd (1999), this does not entitle parties to litigate issues decades later, however shorter delays, in such circumstances, would not attract delay and laches," the bench said.
The court held the appeal as maintainable since neither the general nor the specific statute provided for an appeal from an order of the Commissioner of Payments within a specified period of time, so it cannot be said to be barred by time.
The court restored the matter to the docket of the concerned District Judge which should be decided possibly within a period of three months.
"In the present lis, having regard to the sequence of events, the Claimant - Appellants cannot be said to have transgressed the boundaries of reasonable time in filing their appeal before the District Judge," the bench said.
Cause Title: M/s North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd & Anr Vs M/s Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd & Anr
Please Login or Register
