Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021

In SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020

IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION

O R D E R

1. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020,

this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be

faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/

all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under

the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central

and/or State). On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the

period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals

including this Court w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further orders.

2. Considering the reduction in prevalence of COVID-19 virus and

normalcy being restored, the following order was passed in the Suo

Motu proceedings on 08.03.2021:

“1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,

application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance
Date: 2021.09.25
13:57:59 IST

period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall

Reason:

become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

1
 2. 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. In the
event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with
effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer
period shall apply.

3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand

excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections
23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos
(b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation
for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court
or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for

containment zones, to state.

“Regulated movement will be allowed 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.”

3. Thereafter, there was a second surge in COVID-19 cases which

had a devastating and debilitating effect. The Supreme Court

Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo

Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021

seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020. Acceding to the

request made by SCAORA, this Court passed the following order on

27.04.2021:

2
 “We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep
rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it
has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation
caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus,
thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship
of litigant–public in all the states. We, therefore, restore the
order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order
dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as
prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or
not, shall stand extended till further orders.

It is further clarified that the period from 14th March,

2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing
the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other
laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can
condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

We have passed this order in exercise of our powers

under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of
India. Hence it shall be a binding order within the meaning of
Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and Authorities.”

4. In spite of all the uncertainties about another wave of the

deadly COVID-19 virus, it is imminent that the order dated

08.03.2021 is restored as the situation is near normal.

5. We have heard learned Attorney General for India, Mr. Vikas

3
Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India,

Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, learned counsel for the SCAORA and other

learned Advocates. There is consensus that there is no requirement

for continuance of the initial order passed by this Court on

23.03.2020 and relaxation of the period of limitation need not be

continued any further. The contention of Mr. Vikas Singh is that the

order dated 08.03.2021 can be restored, subject to a modification.

He submitted that paragraph No.2 of the order dated 08.03.2021

provides that the limitation period of 90 days will start from

15.03.2021 notwithstanding the actual balance of period of

limitation in cases where limitation has expired between 15.03.2020

and 14.03.2021. According to him, the period of limitation prior to

15.03.2020 has to be taken into account and only the balance

period of limitation should be made available for the purpose of

filing cases.

6. The order dated 23.03.2020 was passed in view of the

extraordinary health crisis. On 08.03.2021, the order dated

23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of

period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021. While

doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start

from 15.03.2021. As the said order dated 08.03.2021 was only a

one-time measure, in view of the pandemic, we are not inclined to

modify the conditions contained in the order dated 08.03.2021.

7. The learned Attorney General for India stated that paragraph

4
No.4 of the order dated 08.03.2021 should be continued as there

are certain containment zones in some States even today.

8. Therefore, we dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the

following directions: -

I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,

application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till

02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance

period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall

become available with effect from 03.10.2021.

II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the

period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding

the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons

shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In

the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining,

with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that

longer period shall apply.

III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand

excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections

23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos

(b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of

limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which

the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of

5
 proceedings.

IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for

containment zones, to state.

“Regulated movement will be allowed 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.”

........................CJI.
[ N. V. RAMANA ]

................................J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]

..............................J.
[ SURYA KANT ]

New Delhi,
September 23, 2021.

6
 - 1 -

ITEM NO.301 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3/2020

IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

XXXX Respondent(s)

IA No. 55865/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION

IA No. 116735/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 80945/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 90588/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 65908/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 55869/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 83300/2021 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 80949/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 68800/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 68797/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 80992/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 80989/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 116732/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 90585/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 83297/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 55867/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 65905/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)

Date : 23-09-2021 This application was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

For Appearing parties

For UOI Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG

Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR

For applicant(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.

Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv.
Dr. Joseph S. Aristotle, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.

7
 - 2 -

Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv.

Dr. Aman Hingorani, Adv.
Ms. Anzu Varkey, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aljo Joseph, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, AOR

For State of A.P. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv.

For Patna High Mr. P.H. Parekh, Sr.Adv.

Court Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.
Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Adv.
Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv.
Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv.

For Registrar Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

General,High Court Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Adv.
of Meghalaya Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv.

For Election Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv.

Commission of India Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Ashok Nijhawan, Adv.

Mr. Aman Bhalla, Adv.
Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR

Mr. Pawan Reley, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Lodhi, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
Mr. Joydip Roy, Adv.
Mr. Sajal Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Parijat Som, Adv.

For High Court of Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv.

Allahabad Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Smita Kant, Adv.
Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Adv.
Ms. Prabhleen Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Kritika Nagpal, Adv.

8
 - 3 -

Ms. Bhavya Bhatia, Adv.

For High Court of Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR

M.P. Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv.
Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.

Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR

For Gauhati High Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR

Court Mr. Prashant K. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Jenis V. Francis, Adv.

For State of Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv.

Meghalaya Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR

For Bombay & Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv.

Gujarat High Court
M/S. Vkc Law Offices, AOR

Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR

For Calcutta Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR

High Court Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.

For Arunachal Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv.

Pradesh Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.

For High Court of Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv.

Chhattisgarh Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv.

For High Court of Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.

Delhi Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR

Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR

Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv.
Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv.
Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Adv.

For High Court of Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR

Jharkhand Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mrs. L. Bhaswati Singh, Adv.

9
 - 4 -

Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv.

Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR

Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

We dispose of the M.A. No.665 of 2021 with the following

directions: -

I. In computing the period of limitation for any

suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period

from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded.

Consequently, the balance period of limitation

remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become

available with effect from 03.10.2021.

II. In cases where the limitation would have

expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till

02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period

of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a

limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the

event the actual balance period of limitation

remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater

than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021

shall also stand excluded in computing the periods

prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of

the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and

10
 (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of

limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits

(within which the court or tribunal can condone delay)

and termination of proceedings.

IV. The Government of India shall amend the

guidelines for containment zones, to state.

“Regulated movement will be allowed 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.”

As a sequel to disposal of MA No.665/2021, pending

interlocutory applications, including the applications for

intervention/impleadment, also stand disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (R.S. NARAYANAN)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)

11