116 – Applicability of Article 116 to proceedings under the 1990 Act – Absence of particular period of time prescribed in the statute to file an appeal – Principle of ‘reasonable time’ to govern:
Held: The 1990 Act is not governed by the prescription of limitation u/Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the appeal thereunder, from an order of the Commissioner of payments cannot be said to be an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908– Legislature of the State of Assam has been categorical in limiting the application of the code to certain aspects of the Act only – Given that the Jogighopa Act allows for a Judge of the High Court to be the Commissioner of Payments and then categorically provides for an appeal to lie therefrom, Division Bench of the High Court further evidences the sui generis nature of the appeal procedure provided therein – Further, in the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case – Claimantappellants were aggrieved by order of The Commissioner of Payments dtd.13.04.2005 – The appeal filed thereagainst was on 05.112008 – It was submitted that in the intervening period, appellants pursued remedies by way of Contempt Petition before the High Court which was disposed of on 01.04.2008 without any particular relief having been granted – Appeal before the District Judge, u/s.22(8), Jogighopa Act, came to be filed thereafter and the order in question was passed on 05.112008 – Neither the general nor the specific statute providing for an appeal from an order of the Commissioner of Payments within a specified period of time, the Claimant–Appellants’ appeal cannot be said to be barred by time and is thus, maintainable – File restored to the docket of the concerned District Judge – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908– Interpretation of Statutes– “expression unius est exclusion alterius”. [Paras 28, 30.1, 30.2]
Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – ss.22(6), (7) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Applicability of the Codes:
Held: s.22(6) of the Jogighopa Act makes sufficiently clear the commissioner “for the purpose of making and investigation under this act” shall have the powers vested in “a civil court” under the Code to the limited extent as mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d) – Not only u/s.22 (6) is the application of the code limited but further u/s.22 (7) – The application thereof is also equally well circumscribed therein, the Commissioner has been deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of s.195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The description of the powers of either clearly testifies to the intent of the state legislature to specifically restrict the application of both the said Codes, to only the extent provided – The principle of statutory interpretation: expression unius est exclusion alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other) supports such a view – Therefore, it is clear that the vesting of select few powers upon a Tribunal, or as in the present case, a statutory authority, does not equate the same to be a Court within the meaning of the Code – Further, s.22(6) stating “the Commissioner shall have the power to regulation his own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of his functions including the place or places at which he will hold his sittings” also supports the proposition that the Code does not apply to the proceedings of the Commissioner. [Paras 15-18] Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – s.22(8) – Plea of the respondent that by virtue of s.22 (8) providing for an appeal to a court of Original Civil Jurisdiction thereby the appeal being brought under the Code, implies that the Jogighopa Act itself shall be governed by the Code: Held: s.22 (8) of the Jogighopa Act cannot be said to be an appeal under the code governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act – Thus, the period of limitation mentioned under such article of the Limitation Act shall not apply to s.22 (8) of the Jogighopa Act. [Para 21] Limitation – No express limitation provided in regard to the exercise of a right to assail the order – Duty of Court: Held: When a Court is seized of a situation where no limitation stands provided either by specific applicability of the Limitation Act or the special statute governing the dispute, the Court must undertake a holistic assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case to examine the possibility of delay causing prejudice to a party – When no limitation stands prescribed, it would be inappropriate for a Court to supplant the legislature’s wisdom by its own and provide a limitation, more so in accordance with what it believes to be the appropriate period – A court should, in such a situation consider in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the proceeding, the length of delay, the possibility of prejudice being caused, and the scheme of the statute in question – Also, when a party to a dispute raises a plea of delay despite no specific period being prescribed in the statute, such a party also bears the burden of demonstrating how the delay in itself would cause the party additional prejudice or loss as opposed to, the claim subject matter of dispute, being raised at an earlier point in time – However, when a statute, either general or specific in application, provides for a limitation within which to file an appeal, the parties interested in doing so are put to notice of the requirement to act with expedition – Opposite thereto, in cases such as the present one where neither statute provides for an explicit limitation, such urgency may be absent – Although, this does not entitle parties to litigate issues decades later, however shorter delays, in such circumstances, would not attract delay and laches – Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – Limitation Act 1963. [Paras 25, 27]
Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – ss.17, 19, 20 – Scheme of the Act – Omission of period of limitation in s.22 (8) of the Act: Held: It is evident from the provisions of the Act that the state legislature was conscious of the aspect of limitation and categorically therefore, prescribed periods for claims to be made so as to not leave open the possibility of a claim, indefinitely – However, crucially, the legislature omitted placing any period of limitation when it came to s.22 (8) of the Act. [Para 26]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel & Ors., [1964] SCR 129 : AIR 1964 SC 1099 – held inapplicable.
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India v. Official Liquidator, [2017] 10 SCR 199 : (2017) 16 SCC 137; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, [2007] 11 SCR 14 : (2007) 11 SCC 363; Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan & Ors., (2023) 2 SCC 643; Jagdish v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 12 SCC 812; Madras Aluminium Co Ltd v. Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board, (2023) 8 SCC 240; SEBI v. Bhavesh Pabari, (2019)
5 SCC 90; Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., [1999] 2 SCR 505 : (1999) 6 SCC 82 – relied on. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, [2009] 12 SCR 54 : (2009) 8 SCC 646; Uttam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo & Ors., [1997] 1 Suppl. SCR 257 : (1997) 6 SCC 73; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of W.B., [2013] 2 SCR 484 : (2013) 4 SCC 52; Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner, [2019] 6 SCR 872 : (2020) 14 SCC 210; State of M.P v. Anshuman Shukla, [2008] 8 SCR 349 : (2008) 7 SCC 487; P. Sarathy v. SBI, [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 402 : (2000) 5 SCC 355; Aga Mahomed Hamadani v. Cohen, (1886) ILR 13 Cal 221; Ramasami Pillai v. Deputy Collector of Madura, AIR 1920 Mad 407; Dropati v. Hira Lal, ILR (1912) 34 All 496; Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee, [2017] 2 SCR 1 : (2017)
4 SCC 783 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.