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
Discussion
Comments are closed.