Special limitation under railway claims law excludes acknowledgment-based extension of time for filing claims.

The Railway Claims Tribunal's limitation scheme prescribes three years from the date goods are entrusted to the railway administration, and the Tribunal is not treated as a civil court merely because it exercises civil-court-like powers or conducts judicial proceedings. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies only where a special law does not expressly exclude it, and the statutory framework here excludes Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, acknowledgment of liability by the railway administration does not extend time for claims under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and an out-of-time claim can be entertained only on sufficient cause being shown under the special provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal is a civil court for the purpose of applying the Limitation Act, and whether the limitation period under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is saved by acknowledgment of liability.

Analysis: The limitation scheme under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act fixes the period for filing a claim at three years from the date on which the goods were entrusted to the railway administration. The Tribunal is not a civil court merely because it exercises some powers akin to a civil court or because its proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, Sections 4 to 24 apply to a special law only to the extent they are not expressly excluded. The statutory scheme of Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is specific and excludes the operation of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Acknowledgment by the railway administration does not extend the statutory period for a claim governed by Section 17(1)(a), and any application beyond time can be entertained only if sufficient cause is shown under Section 17(2).

Conclusion: The Limitation Act does not apply to extend the limitation period for such claims before the Railway Claims Tribunal, and the claim was rightly held to be barred by limitation.

---