Calcutta HC Confirms KMC Can Revise Property Valuation to Levy Tax In ?11.24 Crore Dispute  ||  Bom HC Cancels Bail of Accused Supplying Fake Medicines, Says it Weakens Public Trust in Healthcare  ||  MP HC: Oral, Anal Sex Between Married Couples Not Punishable under Section 377 IPC  ||  SC Says Respect For Higher Court Orders a Basic Principle, Rebukes Authority For Revisiting Order  ||  SC: Merits of Foreign Arbitral Awards Cannot be Re-Examined During Enforcement Proceedings  ||  SC: Failure to Sign Charge Sheet Doesn’t Invalidate Trial if Charges Were Properly Read to Accused  ||  Delhi HC: Bipolar Disorder Alone Does Not Qualify as Medical Disability Without Benchmark Criteria  ||  Kerala HC: Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics For Marrying Outside the Community is Unconstitutional  ||  Kerala HC: Temporary Use of Religious Land For Public Infrastructure is Not a ‘Transfer’ under Law  ||  P&H HC: Habeas Plea in Child Custody Case Not Maintainable if Child is With Natural Guardian and Safe    

Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board and Others v. M/s. Mohanlal and Company - (Supreme Court) (25 Jul 2016)

Rescue under the provision is for bona fide litigious activity

Limitation

In instant case, Appellant was aggrieved by order of Additional District Judge allowing Respondent’s application under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the time consumed in the proceedings. In civil revision, High court gave the stamp of approval to the same.

It is settled law that, Section 14 of Act applies to Section 34(3) of Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. Object of section 14 is to exempt a certain period covered by a bona fide litigious activity. There has to be a liberal interpretation to advance the cause of justice. However, it has also been laid down that it would be applicable in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. As per the conditions enumerated, the earlier proceeding and the latter proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue. Prosecution of the prior proceeding should also show due diligence and good faith.

Supreme Court opined that, liberal interpretation should be placed on Section 14 of the Act, but if the fact situation exposits absence of good faith of great magnitude, law should not come to the rescue of such a litigant.

Relevant : Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963

Tags : DELAY   CONDONATION   BONA FIDE LITIGIOUS ACTIVITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved