Whether act of State of not deciding application of other party to contract within reasonable time amounts violation of article 14 of constitution?

 In Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak and Ors. MANU/SC/0363/1983 : (1984) 1 SCC 125 this Court has observed that when a power exists to effectuate a purpose it must be exercised within a reasonable time. It has been observed that this is all too well-settled principle to require buttressing precedent. Nonetheless, the Court refers to State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha MANU/SC/0406/1969 : (1969) 2 SCC 187 wherein the period of one year was found to be too long for the Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction Under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The principle of reasonable time as mentioned herein was followed recently by a Two-Judge Bench in Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan and Ors. MANU/SC/0846/2022 : (2023) 2 SCC 643. {Para 35}

36. Keeping in view the above-stated well established principles that State action irrespective of being in the contractual realm must abide by Article 14, and that a) after passage of a considerable period of time, in July, 2004 the reduction to 10000 KVA was agreed to and a new agreement to that effect was entered into; b) irrespective of the amount of reduction in KVA sought other applications were considered within a reasonable period of time; c) no reason has been put forth for keeping such application pending; d) that the Appellant duly and repeatedly followed up with the authorities to effectuate such reduction; and e) the Appellant has been unjustifiably asked to furnish costs for unutilized electricity which, in any case should not have extended beyond the period of six months (considering 'reasonable period' to consider an application, to be so), for a period much larger thereto, rendering such action unquestionably unreasonable and arbitrary.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 7224-7226 of 2009

Decided On: 06.07.2023

The Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2023/INSC/607, MANU/SC/0743/2023.

Print Page

Whether clerical error can be corrected after delay of twenty five years?

 We are also not satisfied with the delay by the Respondents in making a claim Under Section 87 of the Act. The contention of the Respondents is that since there is no time limit specified for filing a claim petition, they could have made a claim at any point of time, particularly for correcting a clerical error.

59. It is now well settled that where no time-limit is specified, whatever is required to be done should be within a reasonable period. In Collector v. P. Mangamma MANU/SC/0170/2003 : (2003) 4 SCC 488 at page 491 it was held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:

A reasonable period would depend upon the factual circumstances of the case concerned. There cannot be any empirical formula to determine that question. The court/authority considering the question whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question.

In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha MANU/SC/0406/1969 : (1969) 2 SCC 187 it was observed that when even no period of limitation was prescribed, the power is to be exercised within a reasonable time and the limit of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which was sought to be varied.........". Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 4632-4638 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)

Decided On: 01.05.2018

Telangana Housing Board  Vs. Azamunnisa Begum (died) thru. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 7 SCC 346.

Print Page

Whether court is under obligation to take action within reasonable time if no limitation is prescribed?

In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn. 'reasonable time' is explained as follows:

That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer.

Thus time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages a party possesses, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. Thus whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time must also be viewed from the point of view of the party who might suffer losses.

 In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the Statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights.

11. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in the case of Situ Sahu and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand reported in MANU/SC/0744/2004 : (2004) 8 SCC 340.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 1250 of 2008

Decided On: 19.04.2017

 Chhedi Lal Yadav and Ors. Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 12 SCC 527

Print Page

When court should reject prayer of addition of parties in suit for specific performance of contract?

In a suit for specific performance, application for impleadment must be filed within a reasonable time. Considering the question of impleadment of party in a suit for specific performance after referring to various judgments, in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/0663/2012 : (2012) 8 SCC 384 summarized the principles as under:

41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are:

41.1. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.

41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court.

41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.

41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation.

41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment.

In light of the above principles, considering the case in hand, in our view, the application filed for impleading Respondent No. 3 as Plaintiff No. 3 was not filed within reasonable time. No explanation is offered for such an inordinate delay of 27 years, which was not kept in view by the High Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 16964 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 614 of 2015)

Decided On: 24.10.2017

 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Print Page