The Supreme Court, on July 10, 2020, passed an order in a suo motu writ petition (Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020) on issues pertaining to limitation and service of notice etc. (“Order”).
By its Order, the Supreme Court has decided on the following issues:
The Supreme Court had, by its orders dated March 23, 2020 and May 6, 2020, had ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), will be extended with effect from March 15, 2020 till further orders.
Since Section 29A of the Arbitration Act does not prescribe a period of limitation but fixes a time for making an arbitral award, it was directed that the aforesaid orders shall also apply to extending the time limit in respect of passing an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.
Similarly, the Supreme Court also directed that the aforesaid orders shall also apply to extending the time limit prescribed under Section 23(4) of the Arbitration Act for completion of statement of claim and defence.
The Supreme Court directed that the time prescribed for completing the process of compulsory pre-litigation, mediation and settlement, under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, shall stand extended by 45 (forty five) days from the time when the lockdown is lifted. However, if the aforesaid period has expired, no further period shall be liable to be excluded.
The Supreme Court has held that service of all notices/summons and exchange of pleadings/documents may be effected by e-mail, fax, commonly used instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. However, in case of service by means of the aforesaid instant messaging services, the party must additionally effect service of the same documents by e-mail, simultaneously on the same date.
With respect to the prayer for extending the validity period of cheques, the Supreme Court held that the said period has been prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In view of the aforesaid and given that the entire banking system functions on the basis of the prescribed period, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the prescribed period and observed that the Reserve Bank of India may, in its discretion, alter such period.
Please find a copy of the judgment here.
This update has been contributed by Aastha (Partner) and Radhika Kothari (Associate).
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.