2019 (5) TMI 1752 - SC - Indian Laws

Commissioner under Section 69 cannot condone delay in appeals using Section 5 of Limitation Act

The SC held that the Commissioner hearing appeals under Section 69 of the Act, 1959 is not a Court within the statutory scheme and cannot condone delay in ... Applicability of the Limitation Act to statutory authorities and tribunals - condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - scope of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act - distinction between a 'Court' and a statutory authority - suo motu revisionary power under Section 69(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - limited operation of Section 115 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (exclusion for obtaining certified copy)Distinction between a 'Court' and a statutory authority - appeal to the Commissioner under Section 69 - Whether the Commissioner hearing appeals under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is a 'Court' within the meaning of the Act and for purposes of the Limitation Act. - HELD THAT: - The definitions in the Act (Sections 6(6) and 6(7)) identify 'Commissioner' as an authority appointed under the Act and 'Court' as specified civil courts constituted by the State. Section 69 provides for appeals to the Commissioner but Section 70 preserves the right to sue in the Court defined by the Act. The statutory scheme therefore treats the Commissioner as an authority under the Act distinct from the civil Court. Earlier precedents dealing with analogous statutory authorities were reviewed; the Court concluded that the Commissioner is not a 'Court' within the meaning of the Limitation Act or within the statutory scheme of the 1959 Act. [Paras 17]Commissioner is not a Court for the purposes of the Act and the Limitation Act.Scope of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act - applicability of the Limitation Act to suits, appeals and applications - Whether Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act extends the provisions (including Section 5) to suits, appeals or applications filed before statutory authorities and tribunals under special or local laws. - HELD THAT: - Section 29(2) applies where a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation for a suit, appeal or application of the description contained in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The Schedule and statutory scheme refer to proceedings to be filed in Courts. A review of precedent (including three-Judge Bench authorities) establishes that Section 29(2) operates with reference to suits, appeals and applications to be filed in Courts and does not, by itself, import the general provisions of the Limitation Act to proceedings before statutory authorities or tribunals that are not Courts. A special/local law may, however, expressly make particular provisions of the Limitation Act applicable or exclude them; that question depends on the statutory scheme of the particular enactment. [Paras 55]Section 29(2) is confined to suits, appeals and applications to be filed in Courts and cannot be invoked to import Section 5 to proceedings before statutory authorities or tribunals merely by force of Section 29(2).Condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - appeal to the Commissioner under Section 69 - Whether the Commissioner hearing an appeal under Section 69 of the 1959 Act is entitled to condone delay in filing the appeal by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. - HELD THAT: - Applying the conclusions that the Commissioner is not a Court and that Section 29(2) does not extend Section 5 to non-court authorities, the Commissioner cannot, by virtue of Section 29(2), invoke Section 5 to condone delay. Absent an express provision in the special statute making Section 5 applicable, the power to admit time-barred appeals under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not arise before the Commissioner. The Court examined relevant statutory provisions and precedent to reach this result. [Paras 55]The Commissioner is not entitled to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.Limited operation of Section 115 of the 1959 Act - statutory scheme of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - suo motu power under Section 69(2) - Whether the statutory scheme of the 1959 Act indicates that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities, and the effect of Section 115 and Section 69(2). - HELD THAT: - Section 115 of the 1959 Act makes provision only for excluding time requisite to obtain a certified copy when computing limitation; it does not incorporate Section 5. Section 110 permits procedure to be 'as nearly as may be' in accordance with the CPC but does not convert the statutory authority into a Court for Limitation Act purposes. Section 69(2) vests the Commissioner with suo motu revisionary power to examine and correct orders even where no appeal is filed within the period in subsection (1), indicating the legislature contemplated corrective jurisdiction independent of Section 5. Absent an express statutory provision making Section 5 applicable, the scheme of the 1959 Act does not bring Section 5 into operation for appeals before the Commissioner. [Paras 63]The statutory scheme of the 1959 Act does not make Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings before its authorities; Section 115 is limited to excluding time for obtaining certified copies and Section 69(2) preserves suo motu corrective power.Final relief and appellate outcome - Relief consequent on conclusions reached regarding applicability of Section 5 and validity of condonation order. - HELD THAT: - On the legal conclusions that Section 5 is not applicable to the Commissioner's appeal jurisdiction under Section 69 by virtue of Section 29(2) or the statutory scheme, the Commissioner's order condoning delay was without authority. The Court therefore set aside the Commissioner's order of 31.07.2013 and dismissed the belated appeal filed by respondent No.3. The Court clarified that this dismissal does not prevent the Commissioner from invoking his suo motu power under Section 69(2) or the respondent from pursuing any other remedy available in law. [Paras 64, 65]Order condoning delay dated 31.07.2013 set aside; the appeal filed by respondent No.3 dismissed. Commissioner remains free to exercise suo motu power under Section 69(2) and other remedies remain open to the respondent.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed. The Court held that the Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is not a 'Court' for purposes of the Limitation Act; Section 29(2) does not import Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings before statutory authorities or tribunals that are not courts; Section 5 is not applicable to condone delay in appeals before the Commissioner under Section 69 by virtue of the Limitation Act or the statutory scheme of the 1959 Act; accordingly the Commissioner's order condoning delay dated 31.07.2013 is set aside and the appeal filed by respondent No.3 is dismissed, subject to the Commissioner s suo motu powers under Section 69(2) and other remedies available in law. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, 1959, is a CourtRs.2. Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal, or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local LawsRs.3. Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963Rs.4. Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicates that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authoritiesRs.Detailed Analysis:Question 1: Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, 1959, is a CourtRs.The Court examined the definitions of 'Commissioner' and 'Court' under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Commissioner is defined under Section 6(6) and the Court under Section 6(7). The Court concluded that the Commissioner is an authority appointed by the Government and is not a Court within the meaning of the Act, 1959. The Court referred to the conventional definition of a Court and noted that the Commissioner, while performing quasi-judicial functions, does not constitute a Court. The Court also distinguished the case from previous judgments where authorities with quasi-judicial functions were considered Courts for specific purposes.Question 2: Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal, or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local LawsRs.The Court analyzed Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies to suits, appeals, and applications filed in a Court as per special or local laws. The Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, are directed only when suits, appeals, or applications are to be filed in a Court, and not before statutory authorities or quasi-judicial bodies unless expressly provided by the special or local law.Question 3: Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963Rs.The Court concluded that the Commissioner is not entitled to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Act, 1959, by applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court emphasized that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, and applications filed in a Court and not to statutory authorities like the Commissioner under the Act, 1959.Question 4: Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicates that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authoritiesRs.The Court examined the statutory scheme of the Act, 1959, particularly Sections 69 and 115. It noted that Section 115 provides for the exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order or decree but does not indicate the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court also referred to the suo motu power of the Commissioner under Section 69(2), which allows the Commissioner to correct orders even if no appeal is filed within the prescribed period. The Court concluded that the scheme of the Act, 1959, does not indicate the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Commissioner.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The order of the Commissioner dated 31.07.2013 was also set aside, and the appeal filed by respondent No.3 was dismissed. The Court observed that this dismissal does not preclude the Commissioner from exercising his suo motu power under Section 69(2) of the Act, 1959.