Recent laws deviating from prescribed limitation period; creating confusion: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently called for making limitation periods uniform across various laws, instead of prescribing varying limitation periods in different laws [My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Vs Faridabad Implements]..Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that there is an increasing trend to enact legislative enactments with limitation periods different from that outlined in the Limitation Act, 1963 and urged for the adoption of a standardised framework across all statutes. He observed that such deviations create confusion, which even seasoned lawyers might fail to navigate. "This deviation and restriction create confusion, and even a lawyer at times fails to notice that a different period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring an appeal under a particular statute," he remarked.He also noted that such varying limitation periods are sometimes more rigid than the limitation period provided for under the Limitation Act. He noted that this affects genuine cases where the litigant may not be able to approach the court in time for cogent reasons beyond his control, where the courts should ideally be allowed to condone delay."I, therefore, suggest to the law makers to keep this in mind while enacting new Acts and ensure that uniform system is applied in all enactments, be it present or future," Justice Mithal said..The judge made the observation in concurring opinion authored on an arbitration dispute that was before the Division Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Mithal. In his lead opinion, Justice Narasimha also highlighted concerns about the rigidity of limitation periods prescribed in the current laws, stating that it "unduly curtails a remedy available to arbitrating parties to challenge the validity of an arbitral award.”He urged the Parliament to address these issues."It is for the legislature to bring about clarity and certainty. The overbearing intellectualisation of the Act by courts has become the bane of Indian arbitration," Justice Narasimha observed..The case before the Court involved a challenge to an arbitral award. The appellants, after receiving the award, had a 3-month limitation period to file a challenge, followed by a 30-day condonable period. However, the condonable period expired during a court vacation. The appellants filed their challenge immediately upon the court's reopening. The High Court dismissed the challenge as time-barred, ruling that the 30-day condonable period could not be extended despite the court vacation.The core legal issue revolves around the applicability of specific sections of the Limitation Act and the General Clauses Act to the condonable period. The appellants argue that these laws allow for an extension of the condonable period due to the court vacation. Conversely, the respondent contended that these laws are inapplicable to this case and that the challenge was rightly dismissed as time-barred..The Court eventually upheld the judgment and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, although it expressed concerns about the manner in which different and rigid limitation periods were prescribed in various laws other than the Limitation Act. In his concurring opinion, Justice Mithal noted that several recent laws, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribe their own limitation periods and restrict courts from condoning delays beyond a fixed timeframe."Practically all new/recent enactments are deviating from the prescribed period of limitation as per the Schedule of the Limitation Act and are generally prescribing their own period of limitation, as under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act itself," he stated. He further pointed out that this trend departs from the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows courts to condone delays if sufficient cause is demonstrated.He advocated for a uniform limitation period of 90 days for initiating appeals or petitions, such as Special Leave Petitions to the Supreme Court."The courts should also be empowered to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown for not filing it within the prescribed time rather than restricting the condonable period to a fixed period of 15 days or 30 days as provided in some statutes," he added..Highlighting the practical implications of these rigid timeframes, Justice Mithal cited instances where litigants face unavoidable delays due to illness, hospitalisation, or legal custody, which could prevent them from filing within the prescribed period. He expressed concern that such situations might lead to deserving cases being dismissed on technical grounds despite having merit.To address these challenges, Justice Mithal urged lawmakers to adopt a uniform system of limitation periods across all present and future enactments, while using Section 5 of the Limitation Act as a guide. "This would not only avoid a good case being thrown out on the ground of limitation but at the same time would bring about uniformity in law," he said..[Read Judgment]