Can time spent prosecuting a special leave petition be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?

Only where every condition of the section is met, and in particular where both proceedings relate to the same matter in issue and the earlier one was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. Here the final order of the Appellate Tribunal was never the subject matter of challenge either before the High Court or before the Supreme Court; the only order challenged there granted liberty to seek an early hearing. The primary condition therefore failed and the exclusion did not arise.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s.42 — Limitation Act, 1963 — ss.5, 14, 29(2) — Appeal to High Court — Condonation of delay — Exclusion of time — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s.42 — Appeal to High Court — Outer limit of 120 days — Held: An appeal against an order of the Appellate Tribunal lies within sixty days, and may be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days on sufficient cause. No appeal can be entertained after the expiry of this total 120 days. (¶7) Limitation Act, 1963 — s.14 — Exclusion of time — Applicability to special enactments — Held further: The benefit of Section 14 extends even to special enactments, provided the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 is not expressly barred. The five conditions set out in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises must co-exist before the section can be pressed into service. (¶14) Limitation Act, 1963 — s.14 — Same matter in issue — Due diligence and good faith — Held further: Where the final order of the Appellate Tribunal was never the subject matter of challenge in the earlier proceedings, the same matter in issue condition fails. A party who consciously ignored the statutory appeal is not prosecuting with due diligence and good faith. (¶24, 26) Limitation Act, 1963 — s.14 — Liberty to challenge — Limitation not automatically extended — Held further: Liberty granted while dismissing a special leave petition as withdrawn allows the final order to be challenged in appropriate proceedings, but does not automatically extend the period of limitation. Condonation of delay dismissed and the appeal rejected as not maintainable. (¶28, 30, 33)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Bell Tower Enterprises LLP v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India