https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775136 The SC held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006, and time-barred claims can be referred to such conciliation. The Court reasoned that conciliation is non-coercive as parties must voluntarily agree to settlement terms, distinguishing it from recovery processes in precedent cases. A settlement agreement for time-barred claims through conciliation constitutes a valid contract under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. However, the SC ruled that the Limitation Act does apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, as Section 18(3) makes all ACA provisions applicable including Section 43, which incorporates limitation provisions. The MSMED Act's non-obstante clause ensures its provisions override conflicting ACA provisions. The appeal was allowed in part. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:43:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775136 The SC held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006, and time-barred claims can be referred to such conciliation. The Court reasoned that conciliation is non-coercive as parties must voluntarily agree to settlement terms, distinguishing it from recovery processes in precedent cases. A settlement agreement for time-barred claims through conciliation constitutes a valid contract under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. However, the SC ruled that the Limitation Act does apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, as Section 18(3) makes all ACA provisions applicable including Section 43, which incorporates limitation provisions. The MSMED Act's non-obstante clause ensures its provisions override conflicting ACA provisions. The appeal was allowed in part. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775136