Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that “Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.” Section 5 reads as follows: “Any appeal or any application, other …
“Sufficient Cause” In Section 5 Limitation Act – Meaning & Scope Read More »
“In the absence of provisions for exclusion of such period in respect of an application under Section 9, IBC, despite the combined reading of Section 238A, IBC and the provisions under the Limitation Act what is legally available to such a party is to assign the same as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay …
In M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(7) SCC 58, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act applies only to courts and not to the tribunals. Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. (2008) 7 SCC 169. Ganesan vs Commissioner Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board AIR 2019 SC 2343 :: 2019 (2) …
Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Quasi Judicial Authorities Or Tribunals Read More »
N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] : The object of fixing time limit for initiation of legal proceedings is not meant to destroy the rights of any party but to fix a life span for legal remedies in public interest and that the expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally. Collector Land Acquisition, …
S 5 Limitation Act – Liberal Approach In Condonation Of Delay Read More »