Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

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