LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 20 August 2026

Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act apply to appeals under special enactments?

Bell Tower Enterprises LLP v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
CMA.SR106394/2026 · C.M.P.No.17568 of 2026 and C.M.A.SR.No.106394 of 2026
Coram: Justice G.Arul Murugan · Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.42 Prevention of Money Launder…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. The benefit extends even to special enactments provided the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 is not expressly barred by that law. But the five conditions set out in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises must co-exist, and Section 14 will not assist a party guilty of negligence or inaction.

Headnote

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— Limitation not automatically extended — Held further: Liberty granted while dismissing a special leave petition as withdrawn allows the final order to be challenged in appropriate proceedings, but does not automatically extend the period of limitation.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)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 14Based on the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act extends even to special enactments, provided the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 is not expressly barred. However, to avail of the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must satisfy the five conditions as set out in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises (supra).
Acts & Sections
s.42 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002s.14 Limitation Act, 1963s.29(2) Limitation Act, 1963s.5 Limitation Act, 1963

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can time spent prosecuting a special leave petition be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act?Can delay beyond 120 days in an appeal under Section 42 of the PML Act be condoned?Does liberty granted while dismissing a special leave petition extend the period of limitation?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections