//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec.5 of Limitation Act – Sec.19 Of Revision powers of High court – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983 =CIVIL APPEAL NO.3498 OF 2008 STATE OF M.P. & ANR. ……APPELLANTS Vs. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA ……RESPONDENT = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41818

Sec.5 of Limitation Act – Sec.19 Of Revision powers of High court – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983 =

“Whether Provision of Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is applicable to revision

filed under Section 19 in the High

Court?”

“19. High Court’s power of revision

(1)-

The High Court may suo motu at any time

or on an application made to it within

three months of the award by an aggrieved

party, call for the record of any case in

which an award has been made under this

Act by issuing a requisition to the

Tribunal, and upon receipt of such

requisition the Tribunal shall send or

cause to be sent to that Court the

concerned award and record thereof.

(2) If it appears to the High Court

that the Tribunal –

(a) has exercised a jurisdiction

not vested in it by law; or

(b) has failed to exercise a

jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) has acted in exercise of its

jurisdiction illegally, or

with material irregularity;

or

(d) has misconducted itself or

the proceedings; or

(e) has made an award which is

invalid or has been

improperly procured by any

party to the proceedings,

the High Court may make such order in the

case as it thinks fit.

(3) The High Court shall in deciding

any revision under this sectionPage 8

8

exercise the same powers and

follow the same procedure as far

as may be, as it does in deciding

a revision under Section 115 of

the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908(No.5 of 1908).

(4) The High Court shall cause a copy

of its order in revision to be

certified to the Tribunal.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this

section, an award shall include an

“interim” award.”

Section 5 of the Limitation Act 

provides that an

appeal may be admitted after the limitation period has

expired, if the appellant satisfies the court that

there was sufficient cause for delay.

26. Section 29 of the Limitation Act is the saving

section. Sub-section (2) reads as follows: 

Page 14

14

“(2) Where any special or local law

prescribes for any suit, appeal or

application a period of limitation

different from the period prescribed by

the Schedule, the provisions of section 3

shall apply as if such period were the

period prescribed by the Schedule and for

the purpose of determining any period of

limitation prescribed for any suit,

appeal or application by any special or

local law, the provisions contained in

sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply

only in so far as, and to the extent to

which, they are not expressly excluded by

such special or local law.”

Sub section (2) thus, provides that Sections 4 to 24 of

the Limitation Act shall be applicable to any Act which

prescribes a special period of limitation, unless they

are expressly excluded by that special law.

Section 19 of the Act of 1983, does not contain any

express rider on the power of the High Court toPage 23

23

entertain an application for revision after the expiry

of the prescribed period of three months. On the

contrary, the High Court is conferred with suo moto

power, to call for the record of an award at any time.

It cannot, therefore, be said that the legislative

intent was to exclude the applicability of Section 5 of

the Limitation Act to Section 19 of the Act of 1983.

38. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to delve into the

question of whether the Arbitral Tribunal constituted

under the Act is a Court or not for answering the issue

in the present case, as the delay in filing the

revision has occurred before the High Court, and not

the Arbitral Tribunal.

Answer to Point No.2

39. In light of the reasons recorded above, we are of

the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad,

Morena (supra) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of

the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the

Act of 1983. No express exclusion has been incorporatedPage 24

24

therein, and there is neither any evidence to suggest

that the legislative intent was to bar the application

of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on Section 19 of the

Act of 1983. The cases which were relied upon to

dismiss the Special Leave Petition, namely Nasiruddin

(supra) and Popular Construction (supra) can be

distinguished both in terms of the facts as well as the

law applicable, and thus, have no bearing on the facts

of the present case.

40. For the reasons stated supra, we answer the points

framed by us in the affirmative in favour of the

appellants. The impugned judgments and orders are set

aside and both the appeals are allowed. The delay in

filing revision petitions is condoned and the cases are

remanded to the High Court to examine the same on

merits. We request the High Court to dispose of the

cases as expeditiously as possible. 

2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41818

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,759,624 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com