Supreme Court - Daily Orders
In Re Cognizance For Extension Of ... vs Xxxx on 23 September, 2021
Bench: Chief Justice, L. Nageswara Rao, Surya Kant
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021
In SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020
IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION
O R D E R
1. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020,
this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be
faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/
all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under
the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central
and/or State). On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the
period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals
including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.
2. Considering the reduction in prevalence of COVID-19 virus and
normalcy being restored, the following order was passed in the Suo
Motu proceedings on 08.03.2021:
“1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,
application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance
Date: 2021.09.25
13:57:59 IST
period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall
Reason:
become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
1
2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the
actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall
have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the
event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with
effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply.
3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand
excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections
23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos
(b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation
for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court
or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for
containment zones, to state.
“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies,
provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary
functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal
purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.”
3. Thereafter, there was a second surge in COVID-19 cases which
had a devastating and debilitating effect. The Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo
Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021
seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020. Acceding to the
request made by SCAORA, this Court passed the following order on
27.04.2021:
2
“We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep
rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it
has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation
caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus,
thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship
of litigant–public in all the states. We, therefore, restore the
order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order
dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as
prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or
not, shall stand extended till further orders.
It is further clarified that the period from 14th March,
2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing
the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other
laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can
condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
We have passed this order in exercise of our powers
under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of
Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities.”
4. In spite of all the uncertainties about another wave of the
deadly COVID-19 virus, it is imminent that the order dated
08.03.2021 is restored as the situation is near normal.
5. We have heard learned Attorney General for India, Mr. Vikas
3
Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India,
Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, learned counsel for the SCAORA and other
learned Advocates. There is consensus that there is no requirement
for continuance of the initial order passed by this Court on
23.03.2020 and relaxation of the period of limitation need not be
continued any further. The contention of Mr. Vikas Singh is that the
order dated 08.03.2021 can be restored, subject to a modification.
He submitted that paragraph No.2 of the order dated 08.03.2021
provides that the limitation period of 90 days will start from
15.03.2021 notwithstanding the actual balance of period of
limitation in cases where limitation has expired between 15.03.2020
and 14.03.2021. According to him, the period of limitation prior to
15.03.2020 has to be taken into account and only the balance
period of limitation should be made available for the purpose of
filing cases.
6. The order dated 23.03.2020 was passed in view of the
extraordinary health crisis. On 08.03.2021, the order dated
23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of
period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While
doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start
from 15.03.2021. As the said order dated 08.03.2021 was only a
one-time measure, in view of the pandemic, we are not inclined to
modify the conditions contained in the order dated 08.03.2021.
7. The learned Attorney General for India stated that paragraph
4
No.4 of the order dated 08.03.2021 should be continued as there
are certain containment zones in some States even today.
8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the
following directions: -
I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,
application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till
02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance
period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall
become available with effect from 03.10.2021.
II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding
the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons
shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In
the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining,
with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that
longer period shall apply.
III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand
excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections
23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos
(b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of
limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which
the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of
5
proceedings.
IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for
containment zones, to state.
“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical
emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and
other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications,
including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related
requirements.”
........................CJI.
[ N. V. RAMANA ]
................................J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
..............................J.
[ SURYA KANT ]
New Delhi,
September 23, 2021.
6
- 1 -
ITEM NO.301 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020
IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
XXXX Respondent(s)
IA No. 55865/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 116735/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 80945/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 90588/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 65908/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 55869/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 83300/2021 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 80949/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 68800/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 68797/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 80992/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 80989/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 116732/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 90585/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 83297/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 55867/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 65905/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Date : 23-09-2021 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
For Appearing parties
For UOI Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR
For applicant(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv.
Dr. Joseph S. Aristotle, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.
7
- 2 -
Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv.
Dr. Aman Hingorani, Adv.
Ms. Anzu Varkey, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aljo Joseph, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR
For State of A.P. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv.
For Patna High Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr.Adv.
Court Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.
Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Adv.
Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv.
Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv.
For Registrar Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.
General,High Court Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adv.
of Meghalaya Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
For Election Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv.
Commission of India Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Nijhawan, Adv.
Mr. Aman Bhalla, Adv.
Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR
Mr. Pawan Reley, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Lodhi, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
Mr. Joydip Roy, Adv.
Mr. Sajal Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Parijat Som, Adv.
For High Court of Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv.
Allahabad Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Smita Kant, Adv.
Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv.
Ms. Prabhleen Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Adv.
8
- 3 -
Ms. Bhavya Bhatia, Adv.
For High Court of Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
M.P. Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv.
Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR
For Gauhati High Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR
Court Mr. Prashant K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Jenis V. Francis, Adv.
For State of Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv.
Meghalaya Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
For Bombay & Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv.
Gujarat High Court
M/S. Vkc Law Offices, AOR
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR
For Calcutta Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
High Court Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
For Arunachal Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv.
Pradesh Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
For High Court of Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv.
Chhattisgarh Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv.
For High Court of Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Delhi Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Adv.
For High Court of Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Jharkhand Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mrs. L. Bhaswati Singh, Adv.
9
- 4 -
Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the following directions: -
I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till
02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and 10
(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state.
“Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.” As a sequel to disposal of MA No.665/2021, pending interlocutory applications, including the applications for intervention/impleadment, also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (R.S. NARAYANAN) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file) 11