Court/Tribunal Can Condone Delay Under Section 5 Limitation Act Even In The Absence Of A Formal Application: Supreme Court

Court/Tribunal Can Condone Delay Under Section 5 Limitation Act Even In The Absence Of A Formal Application: Supreme Court 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Supreme Court held that there is no bar to practice by the Court/Tribunal of its watchfulness to excuse delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, without a proper application. 

In any case, the Court can generally demand that an application or a testimony showing cause for the postponement be recorded, the seat including Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta noticed. 

The judgement was provided by the bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Hemant Gupta in the case of Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd.

FURTHER DETAILS

The court was thinking about an allure against a judgment of NCLAT judgment in which one of the issues raised was whether delay past three years in documenting an application under Section 7 of IBC can be approved, without an application for approbation of postpone made by the candidate under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

For this situation, the Financial Creditor had not recorded any application before the NCLT under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thusly, Corporate Debtor conflict was that the deferral in documenting the application under Section 7 of the IBC, couldn't have been supported. 

The court noticed that Section 5 doesn't discuss any application and it empowers the Court to concede an application or allure if the candidate or the litigant, all things considered, fulfills the Court that he had adequate reason for not making the application as well as favoring the allure, inside the time recommended. 

JUDGEMENT OVERVIEW

Despite the fact that, it is the overall practice to make a proper application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to empower the Court or Tribunal to gauge the adequacy of the reason for the powerlessness of the litigant/candidate to move toward the Court/Tribunal inside the time endorsed by restriction, there is no bar to practice by the Court/Tribunal of its watchfulness to approve delay, without a conventional application.

A plain perusing of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it plentifully certain that, it isn't required to document an application recorded as a hard copy before help can be allowed under the said segment. Had such an application been obligatory, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have explicitly given so.

Section 5 would then have perused that the Court may support delay past the time endorsed by limit for documenting an application or allure, if on thought of the utilization of the litigant or the candidate, by and large, for approbation of deferral, the Court is fulfilled that the appealing party/candidate had adequate reason for not inclining toward the allure or making the application inside such period. 

Then again, a stipulation or an Explanation would have been added to Section 5, requiring the appealing party or the candidate, by and large, to make an application for approbation of postponement. 

The seat anyway explained that a Court can generally demand that an application or an oath showing cause for the postponement be documented and no candidate or appealing party can guarantee approbation of deferral under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as of right, without making an application.

WHAT ACCORDING TO YOU SHOULD BE THE PLAN OF ACTION AFTER THIS? LET US KNOW YOUR OPINIONS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW! 

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement