Special limitation scheme excludes general condonation and bars writ-based revival of a time-barred appeal.

A special statute prescribing a 45-day appeal period with condonation only for a further 15 days excludes the general condonation power under the Limitation Act. Once the legislature fixes an express outer limit, the appellate authority cannot extend time beyond that limit, because Section 5 would nullify the statutory restriction. The text also states that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 cannot be used to enlarge a time-barred appeal or direct merits hearing contrary to the limitation scheme. The stated effect is that the appeal remained barred by limitation and the contrary earlier view was overruled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the appellate authority could condone delay beyond the outer limit of sixty days by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to condone such delay and remit the appeal for decision on merits.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the appellate authority could condone delay beyond the outer limit of sixty days by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 25(1) of the special statute prescribed a limitation period of forty-five days for filing an appeal and permitted condonation only up to a further fifteen days on sufficient cause being shown. The statutory scheme made the limitation provision self-contained and indicated that the special law excluded the general power of condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Once the legislature fixed an express outer limit, any further extension would render the words limiting condonation otiose.

Conclusion: The appellate authority had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond sixty days, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was inapplicable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to condone such delay and remit the appeal for decision on merits.

Analysis: The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is meant to enforce law, not to direct authorities to act contrary to an express statutory mandate. Where a special enactment prescribes both the limitation period and the extent of condonable delay, the High Court cannot, in the name of judicial review, enlarge that period or restore a time-barred appeal for merits consideration. Doing so would defeat the legislative intent underlying the limitation scheme.

Conclusion: The High Court could not condone the delay or direct the appellate authority to hear the matter on merits.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the appellant, the contrary earlier view was overruled, and the appeal was held to be barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a fixed limitation period with a limited power of condonation, that scheme excludes the general limitation provision and cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction to revive a time-barred appeal.

---