2015 (8) TMI 1106 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Limitation Act applies to Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam, 1983, allows delay condonation in revision petitions

The Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act applies to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, allowing for the condonation of delay ... Revisional order dismissed as barred by limitation - Whether the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Held that:- 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 - Section 19 of the Act of 1983, does not contain any express rider on the power of the High Court to 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. - legislative intent was to exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 19 of the Act of 1983. - 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. Case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (2003 (8) TMI 534 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983. No express exclusion has been incorporated 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 (2003 (1) TMI 693 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Popular Construction (2001 (10) TMI 1044 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) 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. - The impugned judgments and orders are set aside - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.2. Appropriate order to be passed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983:The primary issue addressed was whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5, apply to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (the Act of 1983). The Act of 1983 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Tribunal to arbitrate disputes involving the State Government or Public Undertakings. Section 19 of the Act confers the power of revision on the High Court, allowing an aggrieved party to file for revision within three months of the award. The amendment in 2005 to Section 19, which conferred the power to condone delay, was not applicable as the dispute pertained to the period before the amendment.The Limitation Act, 1963, being general legislation on the law of limitation, includes Section 5, which allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that Sections 4 to 24 shall apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded.The Court examined the applicability of the Limitation Act by referring to previous judgments:- In Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpuravil Aboobacker, it was held that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to special laws unless expressly excluded.- In Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, it was noted that even without express exclusion, the court could determine if the special law intended to exclude the Limitation Act.The Court found that Section 19 of the Act of 1983 prescribes a limitation period of three months without expressly excluding the Limitation Act. The judgments in Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal and Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. were distinguished as they dealt with different contexts and did not apply to the present case.The Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983, as there was no express exclusion or legislative intent to bar its application.2. Appropriate Order:The Court determined that the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition as time-barred without considering the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company was decided erroneously, and the judgments relied upon to dismiss the Special Leave Petition were not applicable.The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders, allowed the appeals, condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions, and remanded the cases to the High Court for examination on merits. The High Court was requested to dispose of the cases expeditiously.In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act applies to the Act of 1983, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing revision petitions under Section 19. The appeals were allowed, and the cases were remanded to the High Court for further consideration.