It is best to find out about judgments concerning the extension of the limitation interval after the COVID pandemic!

The author of this article has compiled nine rulings from the Supreme Court and various high courts regarding the extension of the statute of limitations after the COVID pandemic

Supreme Court of India (March 2020)

Extension of the limitation period in all proceedings, regardless of the prescribed limitation period according to general law or special laws, whether tolerable or not

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No (s) .3 / 2020

Access link:

Supreme Court – 1st decision on extension – 1st

The Supreme Court has issued an order to extend the limitation in all such proceedings, regardless of the limitation imposed by general law or special laws, whether tolerable or not, until March 15, 2020 until further decisions dated Supreme Court itself are to be enacted.

The Tribunal relied on Article 142 in conjunction with Article 141 of the Constitution in adopting this decision. The same order was communicated to all High Courts and Subordinate Courts / Tribunal in the respective jurisdictions of each of those High Courts.

NCLT (issued a notice) (March)

All litigants were advised that the extension of the statute of limitations was granted by the Supreme Court stating that this is applicable to cases falling under the jurisdiction of the NCLT. The goal of such a Supreme Court order was to reduce physical filing with the court across the country during the pandemic.

Supreme Court of India (May 2020)

The Supreme Court extended the statute of limitations for statutory provisions under Section 138 of the Tradable Instruments Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No (s) .3 / 2020

Access link:

Clarification of the extension order by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court extended the limitation period for statutory provisions under Section 138 of the Act on Tradable Instruments and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with effect from March 15 until further orders.

The resolution was passed in an application to extend the restriction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Section 138 of the Act on Tradable Instruments. The same applies to all dishes.

Supreme Court of India (June 2020)

The government’s extension of the restriction and blocking restrictions do not affect a defendant’s right to apply for standard bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

S. Kasi v. State by the inspector of the Samaynallur Police Station, Cr (App) No. 452 of 2020

Access link:

ACFrOgBWbiMjaj0BsIWKuD-gz2jF9-iOolb3ZA7cKqf51S-seWEunjPyyedzQoXMVZxRkAzE8Z0LwcZjGlMs2RJyKPvmIanyN0N293hQLlaYkZtkt

The Supreme Court ruled that its suo moto order to extend the restriction and the government’s lockdown restrictions do not affect a defendant’s right to apply for standard bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This decision overturned the judgment of a single bank of the Madras High Court in the S Kasi v. State case, according to which the deadline for filing the indictment under Section 167 (2) CrPC due to the limitation of the SC extension and limitation order also the blocking restrictions will be extended.

The court ruled that the extension of the limitation period by suo moto cannot be interpreted as an extension of the limitation period under Section 167 (2) StGB. The court found that accepting the HC single bank’s view could result in the police taking additional liberties, even with regard to producing defendants after their arrest.

The Apex Court also found that the single judge’s ruling “violated legal discipline” as it contradicted another single bank ruling that the extension of the order did not affect the right to default.

Kerala Supreme Court (July 2020)

The extension of the restriction does not affect the right of a suspect to bail according to § 167 Abs. 2 CrPC.

Md. Ali v State or Kerala and Ors., Bail App No. 2856 from 2020

Access link:

Kerala-hc-at-extension-of-statute-of-limitations

The Kerala Supreme Court has ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision of March 23, 2020 to extend the statute of limitations for filing cases related to the lockdown of COVID-19, has ruled that a defendant’s right to failure to bail under Section 167 not affected (2) by CrPC.

The High Court has made it clear that a reading of the Supreme Court’s general order to extend the statute of limitations for filing cases would show that those instructions were issued in order to avoid difficulties that litigants and lawyers face and that they “are applicable to petitions / applications / lawsuits / complaints and other procedures for which a limitation period is prescribed according to the general statute of limitations or according to the special laws. “

Supreme Court of India (July 2020)

Extension restriction for the filing of cases according to § 29A and 23 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and § 12A of the Commercial Court Act of 2015.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No (s) .3 / 2020

Access link:

ACFrOgDEOGEgwsp5mC0dXmMnH_WKCmBrl51TYo3O0hD22J3HaXzwRf9RB0wFNkY0AQiTORBNCRH8dmiuyuebCaMN1hA6-

The Supreme Court applied its suo moto order to extend the limitation on filing cases to section 29A and 23 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 and section 12A of the Commercial Court Act of 2015.

The bank has also approved the use of electronic means such as email, courier services (such as WhatsApp) for the notification service. However, the bank declined to issue orders that extend the validity of the audit, stating that it was up to the Reserve Bank of India to rule under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act.

Supreme Court of India (September 2020)

Extension only “the limitation period” and not the period up to which a delay can be tolerated

Sagufa Ahmed and Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt Ltd and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3007-3008 of 2020

Access link:

Sagufa-V-Upper-Assam

The Supreme Court clarified its March 23 order, stating that this order only extends the “statute of limitations” and not the period until which a delay in exercising the discretion provided by law can be tolerated.

The Court ruled that the term “prescribed time limit” in Section 4 of the Statute of Limitations cannot mean anything other than the limitation period.

The Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal denying a motion for pardon for the delay and an appeal with the deadline.

Bench took the view that the complainant could not claim the benefit of the enlargement decision, not even for the period up to which a delay could be tolerated.

Supreme Court of India (December 2020)

The extension of the restriction on filing in courts of law remains in effect.

MS. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. against Aaditya J. Garg & Anr., CA No. 4085 of 2020

Access link:

ss-group-v-aditya

The Supreme Court found that its March 23, 2020 order to extend the restriction on filing in courts is still in effect.

It overturned an order from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that refused to issue a written statement because it had no power to extend the time limit for filing the response to the complaint beyond 45 days.

The court found that in this case the deadline of 30 days for submitting a written declaration had expired on 08/12/2020 and the extended period of 15 days for 08/27/2020 and this was only submitted afterwards.

The court found that the decision of the Constitutional Bank of that court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage clearly states that no written statement may be filed beyond the 45 day period in Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act of In 2019, the bank found that it will, however, be replaced by the Supreme Court’s extension regulation of March 2020.

Calcutta Supreme Court (January 2021)

An extension of the limitation period only applies to the first 30 days for the submission of a written declaration

Siddha Real Estate Development Private Limited v Girdhar Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., IA No. GA 2 from 2020

Access link:

Siddha-Estate-V-Girdhar-Fiscal

The Supreme Court of Calcutta has ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision of March 23, 2020 to extend the limitation period only applies to the first 30 days for filing a written declaration under Decision VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not to the additional 90 days would days following the prescribed deadline for matters under the Commercial Court Act 2015.

The additional window of 90 days after the prescribed period is the additional period and not the prescribed limitation period according to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

Comments are closed.