1996 JTR(SC) 911
1996 AIR(SC) 2437 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2984 ; 1996 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 349 ; 1996 2 AllCJ 980 ; 1996 3 CCC(SC) 114 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 114 ; 1996 4 ICC 50 ; 1996 6 JT 626 ; 1996 3 PLR(SC) 763 ; 1996 3 RCR(Civ) 198 ; 1996 5 Scale 140 ; 1996 5 SCC 342 ; 1996 Supp2 SCR 373 ; 1996 KHC 900 ; 1996 5 Supreme 443
1996(5) Supreme 443
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of West Bengal -Appellant
versus
Sri Kartick Chandra Das & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9069 of 1996
Decided on 6-5-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S. Hegde, Sr. Advocate. Chandrasekhar, Dilip Sinha and J.R. Das, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Haradhan Banerjee, Ranjan Mukherjee and Nilmoni Das, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. By operation of Section 29(2) r/ws 3 of the Limitation Act, limitation stands prescribed as a special law u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and limitation in filing Letters Patent Appeal stands attracted.
2. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply to the appeals filed against the order of the Single Judge for the enforcement by way of a contempt.
Act
Referred
:CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT : S.19, S.35
LIMITATION ACT : S.12, S.20, S.18, S.14, S.16, S.21, S.13, S.4, S.5, S.3, S.10, S.11, S.29(3), S.8, S.15, S.19, S.9, S.22, S.23, S.24, S.6, S.7, S.29(2), S.17
A) The appeal pertains to the applicability of the Limitation Act to Letters Patent Appeal filed against orders passed by a single Judge of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides for an appeal to the Division Bench within a period of thirty days, and Rule 3 of Chapter 8 of the appellate side rules, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC, implies that limitation periods generally apply unless expressly excluded. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act provides that where a special or local law prescribes a different period, the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act apply as if that period were the period prescribed by the Schedule. Consequently, Section 3 read with Section 29(2) makes the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable to appeals under Letters Patent, unless expressly excluded by the Contempt of Courts Act or the rules made thereunder. Since the appellate side rules do not expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it becomes applicable, and any delay in filing the appeal is subject to condonation under that section. (B) The key legal principles are that limitation periods attach to appeals under Letters Patent against orders of a single Judge in contempt proceedings, the appellate side rules do not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, Sections 3 and 29(2) read with Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply, and Section 5 provides for condonation of delay. Facts of the case:
An appellant was directed by a single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta to grant registration and subsidy under the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976. The appellant filed an appeal against the order and obtained a stay. Subsequently, contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant for non-enforcement, and a Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay under the Limitation Act. Findings of Court:
The Division Bench erred in holding that the Limitation Act does not apply to the Letters Patent Appeal, as the necessary implication under the appellate side rules and the provisions of the Limitation Act render the Act applicable, and the delay was condonable. Issues:
Whether the Limitation Act applies to a Letters Patent Appeal filed against an order passed by a single Judge under the Contempt of Courts Act, and whether delay in filing such an appeal is subject to condonation. Ratio Decidendi:
Since the appellate side rules do not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, Sections 3 and 29(2) render Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable, Section 5 applies to condone delay, and the appeal is maintainable.
A) The appeal pertains to the applicability of the Limitation Act to Letters Patent Appeal filed against orders passed by a single Judge of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides for an appeal to the Division Bench within a period of thirty days, and Rule 3 of Chapter 8 of the appellate side rules, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC, implies that limitation periods generally apply unless expressly excluded. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act provides that where a special or local law prescribes a different period, the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act apply as if that period were the period prescribed by the Schedule. Consequently, Section 3 read with Section 29(2) makes the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable to appeals under Letters Patent, unless expressly excluded by the Contempt of Courts Act or the rules made thereunder. Since the appellate side rules do not expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it becomes applicable, and any delay in filing the appeal is subject to condonation under that section. (B) The key legal principles are that limitation periods attach to appeals under Letters Patent against orders of a single Judge in contempt proceedings, the appellate side rules do not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, Sections 3 and 29(2) read with Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply, and Section 5 provides for condonation of delay. Facts of the case:
An appellant was directed by a single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta to grant registration and subsidy under the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976. The appellant filed an appeal against the order and obtained a stay. Subsequently, contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant for non-enforcement, and a Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay under the Limitation Act. Findings of Court:
The Division Bench erred in holding that the Limitation Act does not apply to the Letters Patent Appeal, as the necessary implication under the appellate side rules and the provisions of the Limitation Act render the Act applicable, and the delay was condonable. Issues:
Whether the Limitation Act applies to a Letters Patent Appeal filed against an order passed by a single Judge under the Contempt of Courts Act, and whether delay in filing such an appeal is subject to condonation. Ratio Decidendi:
Since the appellate side rules do not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, Sections 3 and 29(2) render Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable, Section 5 applies to condone delay, and the appeal is maintainable.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Order No. 241(W) of 1992 directed the appellant to grant registration in terms of the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 and to grant subsidy to the respondents as per the said scheme. The appellant and carried the matter in appeal against the said order in FMAT No. 3244/92 with an application for stay of the operation of the order. We are informed that the appeal is pending. Pending appeal the respondent had taken out contempt proceedings against the appellant for non-enforcement of the direction issued by the learned single Judge. Against the contempt notice, the appellants have filed a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division bench. The Division Bench in the impugned order dated November 4, 1994 passed the order as under :
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the delay in filing this appeal being not condonable as section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply the appeal is dismissed. The application under the Limitation Act is also dismissed."
Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. It is not in dispute that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal would lie to the Division Bench and limitation of 30 days from the date of the order has been prescribed subject to the exclusion of the time taken for obtaining the certified copy thereof. We have seen that the appellate side rules of the Calcutta High Court applicable to the area other than the city of Calcutta had not expressly excluded the application of the limitation under the Limitation Act.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to contend that by operation of Rule 3 of Chapter 8 of the appellate side rules under the letters patent the memorandum of appeal drawn up under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC requires to be complied with as envisaged thereunder since it had not been provided with any limitation. The Division Bench was, therefore, right in holding that the Limitation Act was not extended for an appeal filed under clause 15 of the letters patent against the order passed by the learned single Judge under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is seen that under the Contempt of Court Act, the High Court has framed the rules. Rule 35 envisages that:
"In respect of appeals from the orders of any Judge or Bench of the Original Side the rules of the Original Side relating to appeals and in respect of appeals from the order of any Judge or Bench of the Appellate Side, the rules of the Appellate Side shall apply mutatis mutandis."
Therefore, for the appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge for the contempt proceedings by necessary consequences, the procedure prescribed on the appellate side would also be applicable and followed.
5. Section 29 of the Limitation envisages Savings . Sub-section (2) thereof reads thus :
"(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law."
6. In consequence, by operation of Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, limitation stands prescribed as a special law under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and limitation in filing Letters Patent Appeal stands attracted. In consequence, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act stands attracted to Letters Patent Appeal insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded either by special or local law. Since the rules made on the appellate side, either for entertaining the appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent or appeals arising under the contempt of courts, had not expressly excluded, Section 5 of the Limitation Act becomes applicable. We hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply to the appeals filed against the order of the learned single Judge for the enforcement by way of a contempt. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The delay stands condoned. Since the High Court had not dealt with the matter on merits, we decline to express any opinion on merits. The case stand remitted to the division bench for decision on merits.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal accordingly allowed.
*******