Orders Extending Limitation Period During Covid-19 Also Apply To Period Up To Which Delay Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court

Orders Extending Limitation Period During Covid-19 Also Apply To Period Up To Which Delay Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court

Case: Aditya Khaitan & Ors. V. IL and FS Financial Services Limited

Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6411-6418 OF 2023

Court Observation: “When the whole world was in the grip of devastating pandemic, it could never have been said that the parties were sleeping over their rights. It is, at this juncture, that this Court stepped in and after taking suo motu cognizance passed orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India extending the deadlines. The extraordinary situation was dealt with rightly by extraordinary orders protecting the rights of parties by ensuring that their remedies and defences were not barred,”

“..the very basis of the judgment in Sagufa Ahmed (supra) that under the 23.03.2020 order, only the period of limitation has been extended and not the period up to which delay can be condoned, has been taken away by expanding the protection by excluding the period even for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay. This is an important subsequent aspect which has a great bearing in deciding the present controversy,”

“..while summons was served on 07.02.2020, the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days expired on 06.06.2020. The application for taking on record the written statements and the extension of time was filed on 20.01.2021. Applying the orders of 08.03.2021 and the orders made thereafter and excluding the time stipulated therein, the applications filed by the applicants on 19.01.2021 are well within time,”

Previous Posts

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Ban On Display Of ‘Gross Images’ In Anti-Tobacco Ads In Cinemas, OTT Platforms

Delhi High Court Restrains Parle From Using ‘For The Bold’ Tagline As Predominant Part Of Advertising ‘B Fizz’ Drink In Suit By PepsiCo

Paddy Land Act | Authority Must Consider Feasibility Of Paddy Cultivation While Deciding Plea To Delete Property From Data Bank: Kerala High Court

Executing Court Can’t Go Behind Decree, Aggrieved Party Must Seek Amendment Of Decree In Case Of Discrepancy With Judgment: Patna High Court

Once Investigation Is Initiated By SFIO Under Companies Act, Parallel Probe By Separate Agency Not Permissible: Delhi High Court

Keywords

Orders Extending Limitation, Delay Can Be Condoned