Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61(2) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 12 — Appeal to NCLAT — Limitation Period

 A RAJENDRA

Vs.

GONUGUNTA MADHUSUDHAN RAO AND OTHERS

( Before : Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )

Civil Appeal Nos.11070 - 11071 of 2024 (@ Diary No. 10029 of 2024)

Decided on : 04-04-2025

 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 61(2) — Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 12 — Appeal to NCLAT — Limitation Period — Commencement and Calculation — The statutory limitation period for filing an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is thirty days, commencing from the date of pronouncement of the order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) — The NCLAT possesses discretion to condone delay for a further period not exceeding fifteen days, upon satisfaction of sufficient cause — The scheme of Section 61 IBC does not postpone the commencement of limitation until a certified copy is made available, distinguishing it from provisions like Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.

While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law, it can be treated as a pure question of law where the suit is filed after an inordinate delay

 Limitation Act, 1963 — Question of Limitation — Nature (Fact/Law/Mixed) — While limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law, it can be treated as a pure question of law where the suit is filed after an inordinate delay without adequate explanation in the pleadings, or where the facts establishing the bar are evident from the record — In such cases, the court must address it under its S. 3 duty.

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances

 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State, if “sufficient cause” is shown and substantial justice is served, balancing between adherence to limitation and the pursuit of meritorious claims —Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach when substantial justice is at stake, particularly in cases involving government land, while ensuring the State exhibits due diligence in future proceedings.

Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal,

 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State, if “sufficient cause” is shown and substantial justice is served, balancing between adherence to limitation and the pursuit of meritorious claims —Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach when substantial justice is at stake, particularly in cases involving government land, while ensuring the State exhibits due diligence in future proceedings.

INDER SINGH

Vs.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Limitation--Under Section 28 of Contract Act, parties are entitled to provide a period of limitation shorter than that prescribed under Limitation Act.

sclaw.in

Limitation—Bar of Limitation—In order to decide the question of limitation as to whether the suit is filed within time or not, the Court is mainly required to see the plaint allegations and how the plaintiff has pleaded the accrual of cause of action for filing the suit.

sclaw.in