LexM/S. SURYACHAKRA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED versus ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PORT BLAIR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 108 A MIS. SURYACHAKRA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED B c D E F G H v. ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PORT BLAIR AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5958of2015) SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 [KUIUAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Electricity Act, 2003 - s.125 - Special limitation period - Applicability of s.5, Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal before Supreme Court. beyond 120 days' limitation period uls. 125, Electricity Act - Condonation ojdelay sought 011 the ground that the delay ll'as mai11ly on account of time taken in prosecuti11g review petition before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and also because <?[vacations in Supreme Court - Held: Appeal u!s. 125 has to be .filed ll'ithi11 60 days ji-0111 the date of com111z111icatio11 <~f decisio11 or order of the Appellate Tribunal - A further period of 60 days may be allowed by the Supreme Court, if sati.1fied that appellant wa.1· prevented by szif}icient cause from filing the appeal - Thus, the maximum period ll'ithin irhich an appeal can be filed uls. 125 is 120 days, including discretion granted to the Supreme Court to condone the delay limited to 60 days - Therefore, Supreme Court cannot condone the delay beyond 60 days by invoking s.5 <d' Limitation Act, ignoring the special limitation prescribed u11der the Electricity Act. 2003 - Furthe1; I here ll'ere fe11• days leji be.fore t lw d11si11g o/ t hi.1· Court .for swnmer vacations, for the appellant to jile the appeal, therej(1re appellant not entitled even to be11ejit of pri11ciples uls . ./. Limitation Act, 1963 j(1r exclusio11 ~f the period il'hen court is closed - Limitation Act, 1963. Limitation Act, 1963: s.l./ - Exclusio11 of time o.f prosecuting the case bonatide in Court 1101 having j11risdictio11 - E111itleme111 - Held: The lll'o main ingredients j(1r al/racting s.1-1 are (i) prosecution of another civil proceedings with due diligence (ii) such prosecutio11 has to be in good faith - In the .facts of the present case there was lack of good faith and 110 due diligence 011 the part ~f appellant in conducting 108 MIS. SURYACHAKRAPOWERCORP. LTD. v. 109 ELECTRICITY DEPT., REP. BY ITS S.E., PORT BLAIR its case - Therefore, appellant 11ot entitled to benefit u/s.14 - Delay/ A !aches. Applicability of s.14 when s.5 1101 applicable - Held: Principles under s.14 can be applied even whe11 s.5 is 1101 applicable. Dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Court HELD:l.1 The review petition was filed on 25.02.2015 beyond the period of limitation of 30 days. After the dismissal of the review petition on 07.05.2015, the instant appeal was filed b1<fore this Court on 07.07.2015. It is stated in the application that the delay mainly occurred on account of time taken by the appellant in prosecuting a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and also because of the summer vacations, and thus, there is a total delay of 161 days. [Paras 2, 3][41-D,E) 1.2 The appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, · 2003 in Supreme Court has to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal. llowevei·, the Supreme Court, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within the said period of 60 days, may allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days. Thus, the maximum period within which an appeal can be filed under Section 125 is 120 days which includes the discretion granted to the Supreme Court to condone the delay limited to 60 days. The Supreme Court cannot condone the delay beyond 60 days by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and ignoring the special limitation prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003. [Para 5)[112-D-C] Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Ce11tral Electricity Regulatory Commissio11 and others (2010) 5 SCC 23 : 2010 (4) SCR 680 - relied on. B c D E F 2.1 As regards the prayer that the application may be considered in terms of the principles under Section 14 of the G Limitation Act, 1963. The two main ingredients required for attracting the principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are that the party should be prosecutin.g another civil proceedings with due diligence and that the prosecution should be in good faith. It is not enough that one part is satisfied. Both H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A due
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.