Tribunals Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice
Tribunals are statutory bodies, meaning they derive their powers strictly from the statutes that establish them. Unlike regular courts, which have inherent powers to ensure justice (including the ability to condone delays in filing appeals or applications under principles like Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963), tribunals can only act within the limits prescribed by their governing laws.
If a tribunal’s enabling statute does not expressly grant it the power to condone delays, it cannot assume such authority.
The power of tribunals to extend the prescribed period of limitation on grounds of equity and justice depends on the governing statute under which the tribunal operates. Generally, limitation periods are strict, as they are meant to ensure certainty in legal proceedings. However, many statutes provide tribunals with discretionary power to extend the time limit in exceptional cases.
Statutory Framework:
Some laws expressly grant tribunals the power to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown (e.g., Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in India applies to certain cases).
If the statute does not allow for an extension, the tribunal cannot override the prescribed limitation period.
Principles of Equity and Justice:
Courts and tribunals often recognize equitable doctrines, such as delay due to unavoidable circumstances, bona fide mistakes, or lack of knowledge.
The Supreme Court of India and other courts have emphasized that technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.
Judicial Precedents:
Courts have held that where statutes allow for condonation of delay, tribunals should adopt a liberal approach in matters involving public interest, labor disputes, or cases where delay was due to factors beyond the control of the applicant.
However, in commercial and tax matters, courts generally adopt a stricter approach.
Tribunals may have the power to extend the limitation period on equitable grounds, but this power is always subject to the provisions of the statute under which they operate. If the statute is silent or restrictive, tribunals cannot extend time based solely on equity and justice.
The statement “Tribunals Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice” reflects a legal principle that has been emphasized in recent judicial pronouncements. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
Limitation Act and Tribunals:
The Limitation Act, 1963, sets time limits for filing lawsuits, appeals, and applications.
Generally, tribunals, unlike traditional courts, do not have inherent powers.
Specifically, the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act, which allows courts to extend limitation periods on showing “sufficient cause” does not automatically apply to Tribunals.
Statutory Prescriptions:
Tribunals operate within the boundaries of their enabling statutes.
If a statute prescribes a specific limitation period without providing for its extension, the tribunal is bound by that period.
Therefore, Tribunals cannot extend those periods based on general principles of equity or justice.
Judicial Observations:
Recent court rulings, such as those from the Karnataka High Court, have reinforced this principle.
These rulings emphasize that:
The law of limitation must be applied strictly.
Tribunals lack the inherent power to condone delays unless explicitly granted by legislation.
The purpose of limitation periods is to provide a sense of finality to legal proceedings.
The Karnataka High court stated that “Courts Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice”.
Tribunals are not courts, and therefore the limitation act of 1963 is not applicable, unless specifically stated.
The purpose of the law of limitations, is to bring finality to legal proceedings.
In essence, this legal principle underscores the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in proceedings before tribunals.
Tribunals in India, unlike conventional courts, operate under specific statutory frameworks that limit their powers. One key limitation is their inability to condone delays in proceedings without explicit legislative authorization.
Lack of Inherent Powers: Tribunals do not possess inherent powers like conventional courts. This means they cannot condone delays or extend statutory time frames unless explicitly allowed by law.
Statutory Framework: Tribunals are governed by specific statutes that define their jurisdiction and powers. These statutes often do not include provisions for condoning delays, unlike the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies to courts.
Adherence to Statutory Time Frames: Tribunals must strictly adhere to the time frames prescribed by their governing statutes. For example, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has a 45-day limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which cannot be extended without legislative provision.
Policy Decision: The inability of tribunals to condone delays is often seen as a policy decision by Parliament to ensure timely resolution of disputes and prevent indefinite litigation.
Exceptions and Interpretations: While some tribunals may interpret their statutes to allow for certain procedural flexibilities, these are exceptions rather than the rule. The National Green Tribunal (NGT), for instance, has asserted suo moto powers based on its purpose and statutory provisions, but such cases are subject to legal scrutiny.
Timely Action Required: Parties must take timely action within the prescribed periods to avoid losing their claims.
Legislative Intent: The strict adherence to statutory time frames reflects Parliament’s intent to streamline legal processes and prevent delays.
Judicial Oversight: While tribunals have limited powers, their decisions can be reviewed by higher courts, ensuring that they operate within their statutory bounds.
Tribunals in India are constrained by their statutory frameworks and lack the inherent powers of conventional courts to condone delays. This limitation is designed to ensure efficiency and finality in legal proceedings.
The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally.
Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. and Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) – Supreme Court, April 8, 2024
Courts Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice: Karnataka High Court
Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended On Equitable Grounds: Supreme Court
Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam SLP 2054-2055/2022 on 25 April, 2023
