2017 (3) TMI 1628 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court upholds objection on filing delay, emphasizing statutory limit importance.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Respondent's objection that the 71-day delay in filing exceeded the statutory limit under Section ... Period of limitation - entitlement to get the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Appeal to Supreme Court - period of limitation - Held that:- In the instant case, as is noticeable, the application for review was filed after expiry of 30 days. Respondent would contend that for filing of review, no time limit is prescribed. Per contra, Ms. Ranjeeta Ramachandran has drawn our attention to Section 120F which confers the jurisdiction on the tribunal and Sub-section (2) of Section 120 clearly prescribes that the tribunal for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act can exercise the powers vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that in the Sub-section the review jurisdiction is included. The Review Application was presented before the tribunal on 10.01.2008. The main order as has been stated earlier was passed on 28.9.2007. Thus, the application for review was filed after expiry of 60 days, that is to say, the limitation that is prescribed for filing of an appeal before this Court. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which is to be entertained by the Court. We are singularly concerned with entertaining of an application for condonation. If the delay is statutorily not condonable, the delay cannot be condoned. There is no impediment to consider the preliminary objection at a later stage. That will be in consonance with the statutory provision. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The central issue in the appeal was whether the Supreme Court could condone a delay of 71 days in filing the appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appeal was initially barred by 71 days, and the Supreme Court had condoned the delay without notice to the Respondent. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the delay could not be condoned as per the statutory limit set by Section 125 of the Act, which allows for a maximum extension of 60 days beyond the initial 60-day period.Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, states that an appeal to the Supreme Court must be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the tribunal's decision, with a possible extension of another 60 days if sufficient cause is shown. The Court emphasized that the outer limit for filing an appeal is 120 days and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend this period. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. and Singh Enterprises v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur, to support this interpretation.Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:The Appellant argued that the time consumed in pursuing a review petition should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide litigation pursued with due diligence. The Court noted that the review petition was filed after the expiry of the 60-day period for filing an appeal. Since the review application was presented after the permissible period, the Court held that there was no due diligence on the part of the Appellant. Consequently, the principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act were deemed inapplicable in this case.Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142:The Appellant also contended that the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice by condoning the delay. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any pending cause or matter. However, the Court clarified that this power cannot contravene statutory provisions or fundamental rights. The Court referred to previous judgments, including A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. and Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, to emphasize that Article 142 cannot be used to override express statutory limitations.The Court concluded that the statutory command regarding the limitation period under Section 125 of the Electricity Act must be followed, and the delay could not be condoned by invoking Article 142.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, stating that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned as it exceeded the statutory limit. The appeal was dismissed, and the order condoning the delay was ignored. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the limitation period prescribed by the Electricity Act and the inapplicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and Article 142 of the Constitution in this context.