#Limitation Act 1963

The Delhi High Court held that for Section 11(6) applications, the limitation period begins only upon formal rejection of a claim, not from preliminary correspondence. The court also ruled that the mandatory mediation period under the contract must be excluded from the limitation calculation, appointing a sole arbitrator in a duty-free shop licence dispute with AAI.

The Delhi High Court ruled that Indian courts can entertain civil suits to recover fraud-derived funds held in Indian banks, rejecting a forum non conveniens plea under the CPC. It also clarified that the limitation period for such monetary claims is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, commencing from the date the fraud is discovered. This decision guides foreign governments and claimants seeking cross-border fraud restitution in India.

The Delhi High Court ruled that TDS deductions on interest payments count as acknowledgment of debt, thereby extending the Limitation Act’s three-year period to the date of the last TDS deduction. Consequently, loan-recovery suits remain actionable beyond the usual limitation when TDS is continuously deducted.

The Supreme Court overturned a High Court order remanding a partition suit, emphasizing that an appellate court’s power to send a case back under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC is discretionary, not a matter of right. Remand is permissible only when the appeal lacks essential material needed for a decision. Litigants in civil appeals must therefore demonstrate a material deficiency before seeking remand.

CESTAT ruled that an appeal lodged with an incorrect customs office does not lapse under the Limitation Act, allowing the appellant to pursue the refund of duty paid under protest. This clarifies that procedural misdirection does not defeat a taxpayer’s right to challenge duty assessments.

Calcutta HC held that the limitation for specific-performance begins when the plaintiff first learned of the predecessor’s refusal in 2007, making the suit time-barred, while the defendants’ 2016 possession counter-claim fell within the 12-year period under Article 65 and was upheld, clarifying limitation start-points in property-sale disputes.

When a title deed is declared void, the court applied the 12-year limitation under Article 65 for a declaration suit, overturning the lower court’s dismissal on limitation grounds. This establishes that possession claims cannot rely on a shorter limitation, guiding litigants seeking declaratory relief in property disputes.

The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views when reviewing arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment clarifies that limitation for challenging an award begins only upon a clear refusal of performance, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters.

Gauhati High Court refuses to condone a 1,163-day delay in filing an appeal, holding that negligence and failure to monitor court proceedings disentitle relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The ruling underscores that litigants cannot rely on procedural lapses by courts to excuse their own inaction, setting a strict standard for condonation of delay.

CAT Lucknow rules that tribunals, including the Central Administrative Tribunal, cannot condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act unless expressly empowered by statute or rules. The decision clarifies that the tribunal's procedural flexibility under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not extend to delay condonation, impacting review applicants across administrative law proceedings.

NCLAT Chennai reaffirms that High Courts cannot condone delays under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, as the statute vests this power exclusively with the appellate tribunal. The ruling underscores the mandatory exhaustion of statutory remedies and bars writ jurisdiction for procedural lapses, impacting corporate litigants and insolvency practitioners.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that mixed questions of fact and law, such as limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, cannot be resolved as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC without a full trial. The court emphasized that evidence appreciation is essential for framing formal issues, impacting how lower courts handle limitation defenses in civil suits.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces that plaintiffs must demonstrate a real, enforceable cause of action within limitation periods under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. The ruling dismisses a specific performance suit filed a decade after the agreement, setting a precedent for stricter scrutiny of delayed claims under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Punjab & Haryana HC clarifies that a co-sharer in continuous possession need not file a declaratory suit merely due to wrongful revenue mutation. The limitation period under the Limitation Act begins only when title is actively disputed or clouded, not upon erroneous record updates. This ruling protects possessory rights and prevents premature litigation over administrative errors.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that inheritance confers immediate ownership rights, and a suit for possession is not barred by limitation unless ouster is proven. The court emphasized that co-owners retain their rights unless active exclusion is established, reinforcing the burden of proof on adverse possession claimants.