ASHIS KUMAR HAZRAversusRUBI PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 477
- Decided
- 5 May 1997
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Registrar was correct in refusing to condone the delay because the petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the period between the notice and the filing of the suit, and only the period after filing the suit is excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
Ashis Kumar Hazra filed a suit against Rubi Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. after a notice for arbitration was issued on 26 October 1974 under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which requires a claim to be laid within two months. The suit was filed on 10 September 1975, and the High Court held the suit non‑maintainable but suggested that the period could be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the petitioner was bona‑fide prosecuting the claim. An application for condonation of the delay was later filed, but the Registrar refused, stating that no satisfactory explanation was given for the delay between the notice and the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court examined whether the period from the notice to the filing of the suit could be excluded under Section 14 and whether the Registrar’s refusal was justified. It held that only the period after the suit was filed is excluded, and since the petitioner failed to explain the earlier delay, the Registrar was correct in refusing condonation. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing a claim under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act can be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the period between the arbitration notice and the filing of the civil suit is excluded from limitation under Section 14.
- Whether the Registrar was justified in refusing to condone the delay due to lack of proper explanation.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963s. 14, s. 5, s. 6
- West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983s. 95(3)
Subjects
Judgment
ASHIS KUMAR HAZRA A
v.
RUBI PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.
MAY 5, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 :
Ss.5, 6, 14--Notice for arbitration under West Bengal Co-operative C
Societies Act, 1983-Limitation-Notice given on 26.10.1974-Suit filed in
High Court on 10. 9. 75-High Court held the proceedings not maintainable
but observed that since the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the claim
before the civil court, under s.14 the said period may be condoned-The
application thereafter filed was dismissed by Registrar refusing to condone the
delay for want of proper explanation-Held, the Registrar was right in not D
. condoning the delay-Limitation prescribed is only two months after
notic~From September 10, 1975 till date of disposal of matter in High Court
on civil side the said period stands excluded, but explanation for delay from
26.10.1974 till the filing of the civil suit is required to be explained-It is duty
of the Court to ensure that unless proper explanation is given the valuable E
1ight treated in favour of the respondent under s. 6 is not defeated-West
.... Bengal Co-operative Societies Act 1983-S.95(3) .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 11257 of 1997.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.96 of the Calcutta High
Court in C.O. No. 346 of 1993.
R.C. Verma and Chatanya Siddarth for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : G
We have heard learned counsel.
Under Section 95(3) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act,
1983 any claim which arises between the society and its members etc. is
required to be laid within two months from the date of the notice for H
85
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A arbitration. Notice was given on October 26, 1974 and the suit was filed on
the original side of the High Court on September 10, 1975. Under sub- ,
section (3) of Section 95, if an application is filed explaining properly the
delay, the Court has been given power for condoning the delay. The High
Court has held ultimately that the proceedings laid in the original side of
the suit is not maintainable. However, since the petitioner was bona fide
B prosecuting the claims before the Civil Court, under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, the said period may be condoned. On an application having
been properly made, since the application came to be filed, the Registrar
has dismissed the petition saying that explanation was not properly given
and, therefore, he refused to condone the delay. The writ petition was
C dismissed in Civil Order No. 346/1993 dated August 12, 1996. Thus, this
special leave petition.
Shri R.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that
the High Court having held that since the petitioner was bona fide
prosecuting the proceedings, under Section 14, the time spent for that
D purpose has to be excluded, the Registrar was wrong in refusing to con-
done the delay. We find no force in the contention. From September 10,
1975 till the date of disposal of the matter in the High Court on the civil
side, by operation of the direction issued by the High Court under Section
14 of the Act, the said period stands excluded. However, the explanation
E for period of delay from October 26, 1974 till the date when civil suit came
to be filed is required to be explained. The limitation prescribed is only
two months after notice. Unless proper explanation is given, the valuable
right has been created in favour of the respondents under Section 3 of the
Limitation Act, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that unless proper
explanation is given the valuable right cannot be defeated. Considered from
F this perspective, the Registrar was right in not condoning the delay.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
R.P. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.