#limitation

The Supreme Court ruled that a Gazette notification under the Wakf Act, 1954 creates a presumptive title to wakf property that becomes unchallengeable after the one-year limitation period. This restored a permanent injunction for the Telangana Wakf Board over Mafi Inam lands adjoining the Qutub Shahi Mosque, prevailing over later revenue records and pattadar passbooks.

The Bombay HC quashed reassessment for AY 2020-21, ruling a Section 148A(1) notice invalid where mandatory information was furnished post-limitation. On merits, the Court held Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable to proportionate rights allotments with unchanged shareholding and no disproportionate benefit - a mere issue price vs. FMV differential is not taxable in such cases.

The Bombay HC ruled that permissive use by a relative cannot mature into adverse possession regardless of duration, placing the burden of proof squarely on the claimant. The court also held that an encroachment suit survives technical defects in property description and that the limitation period does not commence against permissive possession.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the twelve-month limitation for recovering maintenance arrears under Section 125(3) CrPC begins from the date of the maintenance order, not from when each arrear accrued. This allows claimants to recover arrears for up to a year preceding the order, even if the arrears span a longer period, benefiting maintenance seekers and defining the liability of payers.

The Supreme Court ruled that limitation for appeals under Section 62 IBC starts from the NCLAT order date, not receipt of the certified copy. A delay in obtaining the copy cannot be excused if the appeal is filed after limitation has commenced, impacting parties challenging NCLAT rulings.

The Delhi HC held that a Section 34 petition is barred only if filed after 90 days from receipt of the award, not its date, and directors are liable only with a personal guarantee or fraud, clarifying limitation and narrowing director exposure in loan agreements.

The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

The Calcutta High Court held that COVID-19 limitation relaxations cannot revive suits time-barred pre-pandemic, dismissing an appeal delayed by 2179 days and ruling that unsubstantiated age/ill-health claims lack sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act.

This bars parties from using limitation to defeat restoration where counsel’s misconduct caused delay, affecting stakeholders in IBC.

Under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a unilateral arbitrator appointment after a dispute is invalid without a post-dispute written waiver, the Delhi High Court held, adding that pre-dispute clauses cannot substitute the waiver.

The CESTAT Chennai bench held that the limitation period for a refund claim under Section 27(1B)(c) Customs Act starts from communication of the order, not its mere passage. This clarifies refund timing for importers and exporters after provisional assessments, preventing premature time-bar rejections.

SC held that MCGC becomes payable only on bill issuance, so the limitation period under Section 56(2) Electricity Act, 2003 starts from billing. Hence a 2007 demand for MCGC for 1998 was time-barred, affecting consumers and licensees.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a mutation entry based on an unregistered sale deed cannot extinguish the original vendor's title, and clarified that a suit for declaration coupled with consequential injunction relief falls outside the Section 34 Specific Relief Act proviso bar. This protects property owners from losing title through mere revenue entries and preserves access to declaratory relief with ancillary protections.

The Delhi High Court ruled that compensation under Section 20(3)(ii) of the Minimum Wages Act cannot exceed the statutory limit of Rs 10, setting aside the Authority's award of 50% compensation on overtime arrears. The court substituted the excess compensation with simple interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim accrual. This clarifies the ceiling on penal compensation for minimum wage violations, impacting employers and workers in sectors like private security.

The Delhi State Consumer Commission held that the two-year limitation period under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 begins from the date of the offer of possession letter, not the actual physical handover. The complaint filed in November 2020 was time-barred as the offer letters dated June and August 2017 triggered limitation, which expired well before the COVID-19 extension period could apply.