OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. versus GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 01-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 922 
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. 
v. 
GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1315 of 2010) 
MARCH 01, 2017 
. [DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND MOHAN M. 
SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] 
Electricity Act, 2003 - s.125 - Delay in filing appeal, 
co11do11ation of - Held: Supreme Court has jurisdiction to condone 
the delay but a limit has been fixed by the legislature, that is, 60 
days - When there is a statutory command by the legislation as 
regards limitation and there is the postulate that delay can be 
condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty days, it is based 
on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy 
- It is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to 
Art.142 of the Constitution -111 the instant case, review application 
against the impugned order of tribunal was presented before the 
tribunal after expiry of 60 days that is to say the limitation prescribed 
for filing appeal before Supreme Court - In such a situation, it 
cannot be said that there has been any kind of due diligence on the 
part of the appellant -
It is not an application u!s. 5 of the Limitation 
Act which is to be entertained by the Court- ljthe delay is statutorily 
not condonable, the delay cannot be condoned - Limitation Act, 
1963 - s.5 - Constitution of India - Art.142. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per Section 125 of Electricity Act, 2003, 
Supreme Court, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented 
by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of 60. 
days from the date of communication of the decision or order of 
the appellate tribunal to him, may allo~ the same to be filed within 
a further period not exceeding 60 days. In the instant case, the 
judgment was reserved on 18.9.2007 and pronounced in open 
cou11 on 28.9.2007. Therefore, the date of communication would 
be 28.9.2007. The certified copy was applied through email on 
922 
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. v. GUJARAT ENERGY 
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 
9.10.2007 and delivered on the same date. The appeal preferred 
under Seciion 125 of the Act should have been filed within 60 
days, i.e., 27.11.2007, to come within the period of limitation and 
further to be entitled to get the benefit of Section 5 of the 
Limitation Act, he should have filed the appeal within a further 
period of 60 days, i.e., 26.9.2008. Thus calculated, there is total 
delay of 71 days and 11 days beyond the expiry of 60 days the 
limit that is stipulated under Section 125 of the Act. [Paras 5, 11 
and 16] [926-E-F; 928-F-H; 929-AI 
Singh Enlerprises v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur & Ors.[2007) 
13 SCR 952 : (2008) 3 SCC 70; Commissioner of 
Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private 
Limited & Anr. (2009) 5 SCC 79; Chhallisgarh State 
Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory 
Commission & Ors. [2010) 4 SCR 680 : (2010) 5 SCC 
23; M.P. Steel Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of 
Central Excise (2015) 7 SCC 58 - relied on. 
2. The policy behind the Act emphasizing on the constitution 
of a special adjudicatory forum, is meant to expeditiously decide 
the grievances of a person who may be aggrieved by an order of 
the adjudicatory officer or by an appropriate Commission. The 
923 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of 
E 
the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to 
the limitation has to be the binding effect and the same has to be 
followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. To put it in a 
different way, the prescription of limitation in a case of present 
nature, when the statute commands that this Court may condone 
''· 
the further delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the 
F 
ambit and sweep of the pro.\isions and policy of legislation. It is 
· equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is 
uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to 
Article 142 of the Constitution. [Para 16) [932-E-G) 
Union Carbide Corporation etc. v. Union of India etc. 
· G 
elc. [1991) Supp. 1 SCR 251 - followed. 
Suprei11e Courl Bar Association v. Union of India and· 
Am: [1998] 2 SCR 795 : (1998) 4 SCC 409; Prem Chand 
Garg & another vs. Excise Commr. AIR 1963 !;~ 996 : 
(1963) Suppl. SCR 885 - relied on. 
H 
924 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
3. In the instant case, the application for review was filed 
after expiry
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.