Principle Of 'Reasonable Time' Applicable When No Limitation Period Is Prescribed: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that the principle of ‘reasonable time’ will apply when no limitation period is prescribed.
The court held that the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court held thus in a civil appeal against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court by which the Civil Revision Petition against the order of the District Judge was allowed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “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."
Senior Advocate Parthiv K Goswami appeared on behalf of the appellants while Senior Advocate Rajashekhar Rao appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The claimant (appellant) had received orders to supply certain goods to the respondent company and after doing so, it raised certain bills which were only partly paid by the said company. Subsequently, the company was declared “a sock company” under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1935. For the necessitated rejuvenation of the industry, the Government of Assam enacted the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990. A claim was filed by the claimant for a sum of Rs. 1,58,375/- against which the Commissioner of Payments awarded the principle sum but no interest. The claimant accepted the said amount and raised grievance in respect of non-payment of any interest for the periods 1983-1993. A writ petition before the High Court was filed seeking direction to the Commissioner to consider an award interest on the principal amount due.
The Commissioner granted the same and still aggrieved, the claimants once again knocked the doors of the High Court. The High Court, in consideration of the 1993 Act under which the interest was claimed held that, the interest calculable and due would only be from September 23, 1992 as the Act was brought into force on such date. The claimants moved an application before the District Judge for condonation of delay and it was observed by the Judge that since no specific time has been provided for preferring an appeal upon dissatisfaction with the decision of the Commissioner, before the Principal Civil Court, such an appeal is fit to be admitted. Hence, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case noted, “… it is clear 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 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.”
The Court further noted 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.
“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 (supra), this does not entitle parties to litigate issues decades later, however shorter delays, in such circumstances, would not attract delay and laches”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and directed the District Judge to proceed in accordance with law.
Cause Title- M/s North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1059)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Pradhuman Gohil, Taruna Singh Gohil, Ranu Purohit, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Nidhi Mittal, Rushabh N. Kapadia, and AOR Charu Mathur.
Respondents: Advocate Liz Mathew, AOR Areeb Amanullah, Advocates Harshil Wason and Mallika Agarwal.