9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of rules regarding limitation for filing appeals under the Contempt of Courts Act. - Applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to special laws. - Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals filed against orders of a single Judge for enforcement through contempt. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against an order of the Division Bench dismissing an appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a direction issued by a single Judge under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Division Bench had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay in filing, stating that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply to such appeals, as the rules made on the appellate side had not expressly excluded its application. The Court referred to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which states that where a special law prescribes a different period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded. Therefore, the limitation for filing Letters Patent Appeals under the Contempt of Courts Act is attracted, and Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded by special or local law. The Court further emphasized that since the High Court had not dealt with the matter on merits, they declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the case was remitted to the Division Bench for a decision on merits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Division Bench, and directed that no costs be awarded in the matter.
|
