Topic
Limitation in Indian law refers to the statutory time periods within which legal proceedings must be initiated, beyond which claims may be barred unless excused by law.
The Orissa HC upheld cancellation of a 2001 sale deed where the plot number was fraudulently altered post-registration, ruling Article 59 limitation runs from fraud discovery in 2020 - not execution - safeguarding owners against time-barred challenges to forged documents.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a Section 138 complaint filed before the 15-day notice period expires is a nullity, quashing the summoning order. Following Yogendra Pratap Singh, the court held the complainant may file a fresh complaint within two months with condonation of delay, balancing procedural rigour with the right to prosecute.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a consent decree declaring title operates in rem and binds all parties, rendering limitation and non-execution defences unavailable. The Court directed the State to demarcate and record the balance lands in revenue records within six weeks, enforcing the decree's binding effect on government authorities.
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.