M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. & ANR versus M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 11-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 821 : 2023 INSC 1059
821
CASE DETAILS
M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 
& ANR.
v.
M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2669 of 2013)
DECEMBER 11, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act 
1963, applies to proceedings under the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok 
Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 and; 
if the Limitation Act does not apply then, in the absence of Limitation being 
placed within the text of the Statute in question, could the Appeal fi led 
against the Order of the Commissioner of Payments be held as maintainable 
having been fi led after a period of nearly three years from the said order.
Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition 
Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – Limitation Act 1963 – Article 
116 – Applicability of Article 116 to proceedings under the 1990 Act – 
Absence of particular period of time prescribed in the statute to fi le an 
appeal – Principle of ‘reasonable time’ to govern:
Held: The 1990 Act is not governed by the prescription of limitation 
u/Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the appeal thereunder, from an 
order of the Commissioner of payments cannot be said to be an appeal under 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908– Legislature of the State of Assam has 
been categorical in limiting the application of the code to certain aspects of 
the Act only – Given that the Jogighopa Act allows for a Judge of the High 
Court to be the Commissioner of Payments and then categorically provides 
for an appeal to lie therefrom, Division Bench of the High Court further 
evidences the sui generis nature of the appeal procedure provided therein – 
Further, in the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
822
fi le an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable 
time’, for which, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be 
determined as per the facts and circumstances of each case – Claimant-
appellants were aggrieved by order of The Commissioner of Payments 
dtd.13.04.2005 – The appeal fi led thereagainst was on 05.112008 – It was 
submitted that in the intervening period, appellants pursued remedies by 
way of Contempt Petition before the High Court which was disposed of on 
01.04.2008 without any particular relief having been granted – Appeal before 
the District Judge, u/s.22(8), Jogighopa Act, came to be fi led thereafter and 
the order in question was passed on 05.112008 – Neither the general nor the 
specifi c statute providing for an appeal from an order of the Commissioner of 
Payments within a specifi ed period of time, the Claimant–Appellants’ appeal 
cannot be said to be barred by time and is thus, maintainable – File restored 
to the docket of the concerned District Judge – Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908– Interpretation of Statutes– “expression unius est exclusion alterius”. 
[Paras 28, 30.1, 30.2]
Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition 
Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – ss.22(6), (7) – Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Applicability 
of the Codes:
Held: s.22(6) of the Jogighopa Act makes suffi  ciently clear the 
commissioner “for the purpose of making and investigation under this act” 
shall have the powers vested in “a civil court” under the Code to the limited 
extent as mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d) – Not only u/s.22 (6) is the application 
of the code limited but further u/s.22 (7) – The application thereof is also 
equally well circumscribed therein, the Commissioner has been deemed to 
be a Civil Court for the purposes of s.195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The description of the powers of either 
clearly testifi es to the intent of the state legislature to specifi cally restrict 
the application of both the said Codes, to only the extent provided – The 
principle of statutory interpretation: expression unius est exclusion alterius 
(the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other) supports such a 
view – Therefore, it is clear that the vesting of select few powers upon a 
Tribunal, or as in the present case, a statutory authority, does not equate the 
same to be a Court within the meaning of the Code – Further, s.22(6) stating 
823
“the Commissioner shall have the power to regulation his own procedure

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.