2021 order extending limitation during COVID also applies to delay period condonable by courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified that a 2021 suo motu order passed by it during the COVID-19 pandemic not only extended the period of limitation for filing cases, replies, etc. but was also applicable to the delay condonable by courts in such matters [Aditya Khaitan and ors vs IL and FS Financial Services Limited]..The Court passed the order while granting relief to McLeod Russel India and others including its director Aditya Khaitan (appellants) who had earlier been prevented from filing written submissions by the Calcutta High Court in a civil suit on the ground of delay..The Calcutta High Court had refused to accept their 2021 written submissions in the 2020 civil suit filed by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (ILFS) on the ground that the time for filing this response had expired in March 2020 (30 days from the issue of summons). .However, a Supreme Court bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan disagreed with the High Court said that one of the Supreme Court's suo motu orders passed during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2021 to extend the limitation period for filing responses to cases, etc. applied to McLeod's case as well. .The case arose after the IL&FS had filed a suit for money recovery in August 2019. Summons was issued to McLeod Russel India and others in February 2020, but written statements were only filed in January 2021.The limitation period for filing the written statements expired on March 8, 2020, whereas the period up to which delay could have been condoned by the court (a further period of 90 days or 120 days from summons) expired on June 6, 2020..The appellants contended that the time to file their written submissions stood extended due to orders passed by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic. IL&FS objected to this stance since the first of the Supreme Court's suo motu limitation extension orders (which was passed in March 2020) only extended the limitation period from March 15, 2020, onwards..The Supreme Court ruled in the appellants' favour on this aspect. The top court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's view and its reliance on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the Sagufa Ahmed case. In the Sagufa Ahmed case, the Supreme Court had held that only the period of limitation has been extended and not the period up to which delay can be condoned. However, Justices Maheshwari and Viswanathan observed that a subsequent suo motu order passed in March 2021 nullified the Sagufa Ahmed ruling. Effectively both the period of limitation as well as the condonable delay period were extended by the Supreme Court's March 2021 order. This meant that the time within which the appellants could file their written submissions which could be condoned up to June 6, 20202, was also extended. ."As would be clear from hereinabove, the very basis of the judgment in Sagufa Ahmed (supra) that under the 23.03.2020 order, only the period of limitation has been extended and not the period up to which delay can be condoned, has been taken away by expanding the protection by excluding the period even for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay. This is an important subsequent aspect which has a great bearing in deciding the present controversy," the Supreme Court stated..The Supreme Court further observed it could not be said that parties were sleeping over their rights given that the whole world was in the grip of a devasting pandemic when the delay occurred. .In view of the top court's 2021 suo motu order (issued after the Sagufa decision), the bench held that the written statements by the appellants were filed well within time. "Applying the orders of 08.03.2021 and the orders made thereafter and excluding the time stipulated therein, the applications filed by the applicants on 19.01.2021 are well within time. The judgment passed by the High Court, for the reasons set out herein above, needs to be set aside," the Court ruled. .Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the written statements filed in January 2021 were directed to be taken on record..Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose appeared for the appellants, McLeod Russel India, its director and others against whom IL&FS has filed its suit. Advocate Sahil Tagotra represented IL&FS..[Read Judgment]