Special limitation under company law barred further extension, and negligent pursuit in the wrong forum could not save delay.

Time spent before a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded only where the litigant acted with due diligence and good faith; negligent pursuit before the wrong forum does not justify condonation under the Limitation Act. In company appeals, the special limitation scheme under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 fixed a 60-day period with only a further 60-day extension on sufficient cause, and section 29(2) prevented sections 5 and 14 from enlarging that ceiling. An appeal filed beyond the outer limit of 120 days was therefore time-barred, and no substantial question of law justified interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time spent in pursuing the appeal before a court lacking jurisdiction could be excluded or the delay in filing the company appeal could be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the special limitation scheme under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 permitted filing of the appeal beyond the maximum prescribed period.

Issue (i): Whether the time spent in pursuing the appeal before a court lacking jurisdiction could be excluded or the delay in filing the company appeal could be condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The appeal had first been pursued before the Delhi High Court and was later withdrawn when jurisdiction was questioned. The Court held that although the principles underlying section 14 of the Limitation Act may, in a proper case, inform the assessment of sufficient cause under section 5, such benefit is available only where the litigant has acted with due diligence and in good faith. On the facts, the appellant continued before the wrong forum despite the jurisdictional objection and the conduct was found to be negligent and not bona fide.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exclusion of time or condonation of delay on the basis of section 14 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (ii): Whether the special limitation scheme under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 permitted filing of the appeal beyond the maximum prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 10F prescribed an appeal period of sixty days with a further extension not exceeding sixty days on sufficient cause. The Court treated this as an express restriction created by a special law and held that section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 excluded the operation of sections 5 and 14 beyond that statutory ceiling. As the appeal was instituted after the outer limit of 120 days, it was time-barred irrespective of the attempted exclusion of time spent before the Delhi High Court. The underlying order also did not disclose any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained beyond the outer limit fixed by section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation period under the special company law prevailed, the delay could not be salvaged, and the company appeal failed on limitation as well as on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a fixed limitation period with a capped extension, the exclusionary principle in section 29(2) of the Limitation Act operates to bar further enlargement under sections 5 and 14 beyond that ceiling, and relief is unavailable unless the litigant shows bona fide diligence in the wrong forum.

---