{"id":3140,"date":"2025-05-29T16:36:58","date_gmt":"2025-05-29T11:06:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3140"},"modified":"2025-05-29T16:36:58","modified_gmt":"2025-05-29T11:06:58","slug":"applicability-of-section-4-of-the-limitation-act-to-condonable-periods-in-appeals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/applicability-of-section-4-of-the-limitation-act-to-condonable-periods-in-appeals\/","title":{"rendered":"Applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act to Condonable Periods in Appeals"},"content":{"rendered":"

TATA STEEL LTD<\/strong>. [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. <\/strong>RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS<\/strong>. [RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ., delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This appeal challenges the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal\u2019s (NCLAT) order dated 14.12.2022, which allowed Respondent No. 1\u2019s application seeking condonation of a 15-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The appellant, a successful resolution applicant for Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited, argued that the appeal was time-barred. The resolution plan had been approved by the NCLT on 07.04.2022. As per Section 61(2) IBC, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days (by 07.05.2022), extendable by 15 days for sufficient cause, expiring on 22.05.2022. However, Respondent No. 1 filed the appeal on 23.05.2022 (e-filed) and 24.05.2022 (physically), i.e., the 46th and 47th days, respectively.<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply here, as 07.05.2022, though a Saturday, was a working day for the registry. Respondent No. 1 argued that the limitation period began only on 08.04.2022, when disclosure of the NCLT\u2019s approval was made to stock exchanges, as he was not a party to the proceedings. Thus, the 30-day period ended on 08.05.2022 (a Sunday), extended to 09.05.2022, making the final 15-day condonable period end on 24.05.2022. Since the appeal was physically filed on that day, it was within the permissible 45 days.<\/p>\n

The NCLAT accepted Respondent No. 1\u2019s explanation and allowed the delay. The matter now hinges on whether the NCLAT rightly interpreted limitation rules and Section 61(2) of the IBC.<\/p>\n

The Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Sections 2(j) and 4, and Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, address how limitation periods are calculated when courts are closed. Section 2(j) defines the \u201cprescribed period\u201d as the time limit set by the Act\u2019s Schedule for filing a suit, appeal, or application. Section 4 provides that if this period ends on a day when the court is closed, the action may be taken on the next day the court reopens.<\/p>\n

Rule 3 of the NCLAT Rules echoes this, excluding both the start day and any days the tribunal is closed at the end of the prescribed period.<\/p>\n

Judicial interpretations have refined this understanding. In Assam Urban Water Supply v. Subash Projects<\/em>, the Supreme Court clarified that only the initial three-month period to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act qualifies as the “prescribed period.” The additional 30-day grace period allowed by the court is discretionary and does not qualify for Section 4’s benefit.<\/p>\n

This view was reaffirmed in Sagufa Ahmed<\/em>, Bhimashankar Sahakari<\/em>, and My Preferred Transformation<\/em>, where the Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the extendable or condonable period, only to the strict \u201cprescribed period.\u201d<\/p>\n

In essence, if an application is made during a discretionary extension and the last day falls on a holiday, Section 4 cannot save the delay. This distinction is critical in arbitration and other time-bound litigation proceedings.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

TATA STEEL LTD. [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. RAJ KUMAR BANERJEE & ORS. [RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2023 (2JB, J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ., delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)   This appeal challenges the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal\u2019s (NCLAT) order dated 14.12.2022, which allowed Respondent No. 1\u2019s application seeking condonation of a 15-day delay […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3142,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3140"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3144,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3140\/revisions\/3144"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3142"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}