Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2021
Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020
Judges: S. A. Bobde, CJI; L. Nageswara Rao, J; S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for litigants across India. The Supreme Court of India, recognizing the difficulties in filing cases within the prescribed limitation period, took suo motu cognizance. This judgment addresses the extension of limitation periods for various legal proceedings due to the pandemic. The bench comprised of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu writ petition in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledging the potential difficulties faced by litigants in adhering to statutory limitation periods for filing cases. The court recognized that the pandemic and associated restrictions could prevent individuals from accessing courts and tribunals within the stipulated timeframes. This led to the initial order on March 23, 2020, which extended limitation periods across all legal proceedings.

The initial order was extended periodically as the pandemic continued. However, as the situation improved, with the lifting of lockdowns and the resumption of court operations, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to re-evaluate the extension of limitation.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment addresses the computation of limitation periods under various laws, including the general law of limitation and special laws, both Central and State. The court specifically mentions:

• Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
• Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
• Provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
• Any other laws prescribing periods of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits for condoning delay, and termination of proceedings.

Arguments

The learned Attorney General for India provided suggestions regarding the future course of action concerning the extension of limitation. The court considered these suggestions while framing the directions in the judgment. The arguments centered around the need to balance the continued impact of the pandemic with the need to resume normal legal proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the traditional sense, as this was a suo motu petition. However, the core issue was:

1. How to address the extension of limitation periods granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, considering the improving situation and resumption of court operations?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws in this judgment. The decision was based on the suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India. The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
• Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
• Provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court applied the exclusion of time period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 to all the mentioned legal provisions.

• The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with mitigating the difficulties faced by litigants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court aimed to balance the need to provide relief to litigants with the need to resume normal legal proceedings. The directions were framed to ensure that no litigant would be prejudiced due to the pandemic-related disruptions. The court also took into consideration that the situation was improving and the courts were functioning.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to provide relief to litigants while also ensuring that legal proceedings could resume in a timely manner. The court considered the improving situation and the fact that most courts and tribunals were functioning either physically or virtually. The decision to exclude a specific period and provide a 90-day extension was aimed at balancing these competing interests.

“We are of the opinion that the order dated 23.03.2020 has served its purpose and in view of the changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the extension of limitation should come to an end.”

“In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded.”

“In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021.”

Key Takeaways

• The period from March 15, 2020, to March 14, 2021, is excluded for computing limitation periods for all suits, appeals, applications, and proceedings.
• Litigants whose limitation period expired between March 15, 2020, and March 14, 2021, have a 90-day extension from March 15, 2021, or the remaining balance period of limitation, whichever is longer.
• The exclusion of time also applies to specific sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
• The Government of India is directed to amend guidelines for containment zones to allow regulated movement for legal purposes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Government of India to amend the guidelines for containment zones to allow regulated movement for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as time-bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 shall be excluded for computation of limitation for all suits, appeals, applications or proceedings. Further, a 90-day extension was granted from 15.03.2021 for cases where the limitation would have expired during the excluded period. This judgment provides a clear framework for how limitation periods are to be calculated in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it also provides a clear end to the extension of limitation periods.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in “In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation” provided significant relief to litigants by extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to March 14, 2021, for the calculation of limitation and granted a 90-day extension from March 15, 2021, for cases where limitation would have expired during the excluded period. This decision aimed to balance the impact of the pandemic with the need to resume normal legal proceedings and ensure no litigant was prejudiced due to the disruptions caused by the pandemic.