In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that its 2021 suo motu order, issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, not only extended the period of limitation for filing cases and replies but also applied to the delay that courts can condone in such matters. This clarification came in the case titled “Aditya Khaitan and ors vs IL and FS Financial Services Limited.”
The Supreme Court’s decision came while granting relief to McLeod Russel India and its director, Aditya Khaitan, and others (appellants). They had faced difficulties filing written submissions in a civil suit due to the Calcutta High Court’s rejection on the grounds of delay.
The Calcutta High Court had refused to accept their written submissions in a 2020 civil suit filed by Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (ILFS), citing the expiration of the response time in March 2020 (30 days from the issuance of summons).
However, a Supreme Court bench composed of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan disagreed with the High Court and affirmed that one of the Supreme Court’s suo motu orders, issued during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2021 to extend limitation periods for filing responses, applied to McLeod’s case.
The case originated from IL&FS filing a money recovery suit in August 2019, with summons issued to McLeod Russel India and others in February 2020. However, the written statements were not filed until January 2021.
The limitation period for submitting written statements had expired on March 8, 2020, while the period for condonable delay (an additional 90 or 120 days from summons) expired on June 6, 2020.
The appellants argued that their time to file written submissions had been extended due to the Supreme Court’s orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.
IL&FS objected to this argument, contending that the first of the Supreme Court’s suo motu orders (issued in March 2020) only extended the limitation period from March 15, 2020, onwards.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, disagreeing with the Calcutta High Court’s view and its reliance on the Supreme Court’s earlier Sagufa Ahmed case.
In the Sagufa Ahmed case, the Supreme Court had held that only the limitation period was extended, not the period for condoning delays.
However, Justices Maheshwari and Viswanathan observed that a subsequent suo motu order issued in March 2021 nullified the Sagufa Ahmed ruling. This order extended both the limitation period and the condonable delay period.
Consequently, the time for the appellants to file their written submissions, which could be condoned up to June 6, 2020, was also extended.
The Supreme Court stated, “As would be clear from hereinabove, the very basis of the judgment in Sagufa Ahmed… has been taken away by expanding the protection by excluding the period even for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay.”
The Court further noted that parties should not be considered to have neglected their rights, given the exceptional circumstances of a global pandemic when the delay occurred.
In light of the Supreme Court’s 2021 suo motu order (issued after the Sagufa decision), the bench ruled that the appellants’ written statements were filed within the prescribed time.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the written statements filed in January 2021 were directed to be accepted.
Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose represented the appellants, including McLeod Russel India and its director, in the suit filed by IL&FS. Advocate Sahil Tagotra represented IL&FS.
