9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 in relation to applications made to quasi-judicial bodies and executive bodies under special Acts.
Summary: The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kerala regarding a compensation claim under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Indian Electricity Act 1910. The respondent sought enhanced compensation for trees cut by the Kerala State Electricity Board for laying electric lines. The District Judge initially held the petition as time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the High Court of Kerala, considering previous decisions, set aside the District Judge's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 and its similarity to Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908. Referring to past cases like Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hubli, the Court emphasized that Article 137 does not apply to proceedings before bodies other than courts. The Court also discussed cases like Nityananda M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, highlighting the distinction between applications to ordinary courts and quasi-judicial bodies like Labour Courts. Examining the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the Court noted the division into suits, appeals, and applications, with specific criteria for each category. Citing Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd, the Court emphasized that applications under Article 137 are not limited to the Civil Procedure Code. The Court concluded that Article 137 applies to petitions or applications filed under any Act to a civil court, including those under the Telegraph Act. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing costs to be paid as per the special leave granted. In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963, affirming its applicability to petitions or applications under special Acts filed in civil courts, and overturned the High Court's decision in this case.
|
