Supreme Court has Suo motto extended limitation of all proceedings from 14-3-2021 till further orders.

 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.

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 

Date : 27-04-2021 This Application was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

Print Page

Can a court permit a close relative of an incapacitated individual to withdraw money from the latter’s bank account to cover his necessary medical expenses?

  For ready reference, the guidelines as laid down in Vandana Tyagi, read as follows:

“76. Guidelines (i) A person(s) who seek(s) to be appointed as guardians vis-à-vis an individual, who is lying in comatose state, shall in their petition to the court disclose the details of all tangible and intangible assets of such an individual. The details as to their location and approximate market value shall also be disclosed. In case of bank accounts, stocks, shares, and debentures and other investments are concerned, material particulars will be provided. (ii) The court will have the person lying in comatose examined by a duly constituted medical board which would include, inter alia, a neurologist. (iii) The court will also direct the concerned SDM/Tehsildar in whose jurisdiction the person lying in comatose is said to be located to carry out an enquiry to establish the veracity of the assertion and to gather material particulars concerning the person(s) who approach the court for being appointed as guardians. The enquiry will, inter alia, gather information as regards the relationship that the person(s) who wish to be appointed as guardians has/have with the person lying in comatose state. Information with regard to the financial condition of persons wanting to be appointed as guardians shall also be collected apart from other aspects which may have a material bearing in their discharging the duties of a guardian. Any conflict of interest concerning the affairs of the person lying in comatose state will be brought to fore in the report generated during the course of the enquiry.

(iv) Ordinarily only that person will be appointed as guardian who is a spouse or a progeny of the person lying in comatose. The person seeking appointment as a guardian in his petition to the court will, however,disclose the particulars of all legal heirs of the person lying in comatose. In the event, the person lying in comatose has neither a spouse nor any children or even any legal heirs or if he/she has such persons in his life but stands abandoned by them subject to the permission of the court his next friend who wishes to be appointed as a guardian can approach the court with such a request. In the alternative, the Court could direct the Department of Social Welfare, GNCTD to appoint a public official such as a Social Welfare Officer or a person holding equivalent rank to act as the guardian of the person lying in comatose state. (v) Only that person shall be appointed as a guardian who is otherwise in law competent to act as a guardian. (vi) The order directing appointment of a guardian shall specify the assets qua which the guardianship order is passed. The court will be empowered to modify the order and bring within its sweep other assets, if required, in the interest of the person lying in comatose state. In case liquid funds are not available and there is a requirement to sell the assets of the person lying in comatose state, upon the guardian approaching the court, necessary directions could be passed in that behalf. (vii) The person appointed as a guardian will file every six (6) months (or within such period as the court may indicate in its order) a report with the Registrar General of this court. The report shall advert to the transactions undertaken by the guardian in respect of the assets of the person lying in comatose state. Besides this, the report shall also indicate the funds, if any, received by the guardian and their utilization for the purposes of maintaining the person lying in comatose state.

(viii) The Registrar General of this court will cause a separate register to be maintained which will set out inter alia the details of the proceedings, the particulars of the person appointed as a guardian and orders, if any,passed after the appointment of the guardian. Measures will also be taken by the Registrar General to preserve the reports filed by the guardian from time to time. (ix) It will be open to the court to appoint a guardian either temporarily or for a limited period, as may be deemed fit. (x) In the event, the guardian appointed by the court misuses his/her power or misappropriates, siphons or misutilizes the assets of the person lying in comatose state or fails to utilize the assets in the best interest of the person lying in comatose state, the court would have the power to remove the guardian and appoint another person in his/her place. The substituted person could also be a public officer such as a Social Welfare Officer or an officer holding an equivalent rank. (xi) The guardian appointed by the court shall intimate his appointment to the public official/Social Welfare Officer or officer of an equivalent rank designated by GNCTD. Both the guardian as well as the Registrar General of this court will cause a copy of the order of guardianship being served upon such officer. Such officer shall visit the person lying in comatose at least once in every quarter. The Social Welfare Officer will generate a report of his visit. In case the Social Welfare Officer finds that the guardian appointed by the court is not acting in the best interest of the person lying in comatose state, he will move the court, at the earliest, for seeking appropriate directions. (xii) The guardian appointed by the court will ensure that the transactions entered into by him or her comport with the relevant provisions of the law.

(xiii) In case a relative or a next friend of the person lying in comatose state finds that the guardian is not acting in the best interest of the person lying in comatose state, such person will also have the locus to approach the court for issuance of appropriate directions and/or for removal of the guardian. (xiv) In case, the guardian wishes to move the person lying in comatose state to another state or even to another country for the purposes of securing better medical treatment for the person lying in comatose state, he/she would approach the court for necessary permission before undertaking such an exercise.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Date of Decision: 08th April, 2021 

W.P.(C) 354/2021 & CM APPL. 915/2021

 BHIM SINGH Vs AGM STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN 

Print Page

How to ascertain the limitation of filing the petition if the party entitled to get a free copy of the order as per statute has not received it?

  Therefore, it is true, as contended by the Appellants, that the period of limitation of 45 days prescribed in Section 421(3) would start running only from the date on which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is made available to the person aggrieved. It is also true that Under Section 420(3) of the Act read with Rule 50, the Appellants were entitled to be furnished with a certified copy of the order free of cost.{Para 13}

14. Therefore if the Appellants had chosen not to file a copy application, but to await the receipt of a free copy of the order in terms of Section 420(3) read with Rule 50, they would be perfectly justified in falling back on Section 421(3), for fixing the date from which limitation would start running. But the Appellants in this case, chose to apply for a certified copy after 27 days of the pronouncement of the order in their presence and they now fall back upon Section 421(3).

15. Despite the above factual position, we do not want to hold against the Appellants, the fact that they waited from 25.10.2019 (the date of the order of NCLT) upto 21.11.2019, to make a copy application. But atleast from 19.12.2019, the date on which a certified copy was admittedly received by the counsel for the Appellants, the period of limitation cannot be stopped from running.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3007-3008 of 2020

Decided On: 18.09.2020

 Sagufa Ahmed   Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Print Page

Whether the state is liable to pay interest to government servant for delayed payment of salaries and pension?

The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law.

Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. The State

Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment

of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned,

we are of the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by

the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action

of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the

payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalize the State

Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 399 of 2021

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Smt Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari 

Dated: February 8, 2021

Print Page

Supreme Court order dated 23-03-2020 IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that

lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such

proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country

including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of

limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation

prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable

or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further

order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No(s).3/2020

IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION

Date : 23-03-2020 This petition was taken up suo motu for hearing

today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

By Courts Motion

Print Page

Whether the court can extend the time granted to a party in the consent decree to perform an act?

 Learned counsel for the judgment debtors has heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Periyakkal (supra) wherein based on the compromise between the parties, the appellants therein agreed to pay a certain sum to the respondent therein within a stipulated time in full and final settlement of the decree, time being the essence of the agreement. Though the High Court dismissed the application holding that the Court could not extend the time where time had been stipulated by the parties themselves in the compromise, Supreme Court held that where the contract between the parties has merged in the order of the Court, the Court's freedom to act to further the ends of justice would not stand curtailed. It was also clarified that time should not be extended ordinarily and on mere asking but in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice. Therefore, the Supreme Court in Periyakkal clearly held that the Court may in its discretion, in the interest of justice extend the time of payment however, the same should not be extended ordinarily on the mere asking but in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

EX.P. 71/2019, E.A. (OS) 394/2019 

Decided On: 23.09.2020

Neena Khatry Vs. Varun Moudgil and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mukta Gupta, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1763/2020

Print Page

Whether pendency of an application for rejection of plaint operates as stay to filing of written statement?

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the time for filing of the written statement has been granted without taking into consideration the provisions of Order VIII CPC. Under the provisions of Order VIII CPC, non-filing of the written statement within time entails consequences in law. The pendency of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, does not operate as an automatic stay upon filing of the written statement. In fact, the settled legal position is that the written statement should be filed irrespective of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC being pending. This is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 4th July 2016, in R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayadu and Ors., MANU/SC/0751/2016 : AIR 2016 SC 3282) where the Supreme Court held:

"7. In Saleem Bhai case (supra), this Court has also held that..."A direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 cannot but be a procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction of the trial court." However, we may hasten to add that the liberty to file an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement."

The Supreme Court, has recently reiterated this principle in judgment dated 18th September 2020, titled Sagufa Ahmed and ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3007-08/2020). The Court was considering the impact of the pandemic and the automatic extension of limitation and the manner in which the same is to be applied. The Supreme Court held:

"19. But we do not think that the appellants can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order of this Court was only "the period of limitation" and not the period up to which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. It is needless to point out that the law of limitation finds its root in two Latin maxims, one of which is Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them."

9. The provisions of Order VIII CPC provide a complete timeline and scheme for filing of the written statement. The said scheme would have to be followed. There are certain conditions that have to be satisfied for a party to seek condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The non-filing of the written statement within the time prescribed has consequences in law for parties. The grant of a further extension of time, in a casual manner simply upon an oral request without an application thereto being filed and explaining the delay in filing the written statement, would be contrary to law. Even the lockdown due to the pandemic can only extend the original period of limitation and not the period up to which delay can be condoned.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

C.R.P. 63/2020 and CM Appl. 23570/2020

Decided On: 23.09.2020

 Shyam Sunder Vs.  Shikha Arora 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1783/2020

Print Page

SC Order Extending Limitation Period during Covid19 Does Not Enlarge The Period Upto Which Delay Can Be Condoned In Exercise Of Statutory Discretion

 To get over their failure to file an appeal on or before 18.03.2020, the Appellants rely upon the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. It reads as follows:

This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.

We are exercising this power Under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.

This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.

Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks.

19. But we do not think that the Appellants can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order of this Court was only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. It is needless to point out that the law of limitation finds its root in two latin maxims, one of which is Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt which means that the law will assist only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over them.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3007-3008 of 2020

Decided On: 18.09.2020

 Sagufa Ahmed   Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde, C.J.I., A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0697/2020

Print Page