LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

Miscellaneous Application · 2021 INSC 536Decided 23 Sept 2021
Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021
Chief Justice N.V. Ramana · Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Surya Kant

Background

The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance in March 2020 of the difficulty litigants faced in meeting limitation deadlines because of COVID-19, and had repeatedly extended limitation periods through orders in March 2020, March 2021, and April 2021 (the last after a severe second wave). The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association had earlier intervened through this Miscellaneous Application (No. 665 of 2021) seeking restoration of the extension after the second wave hit. With the pandemic situation improving by September 2021, the Attorney General, counsel for the Election Commission, and the applicant association appeared before the Court to decide how and when the limitation relief should be wound down.

Decision Breakdown

The Court decided there was no need to continue the blanket extension of limitation further, and disposed of the Miscellaneous Application by fixing a clear transition: the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 would be excluded while computing limitation for all suits, appeals, and applications, with normal limitation resuming from 03.10.2021. It additionally directed that anyone whose limitation would otherwise have expired during the excluded period would get a minimum of 90 days from 03.10.2021 to file, or the actual balance period if longer, and that the same exclusion would apply to specific statutory timelines under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Commercial Courts Act, and the cheque-bounce provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It declined to revisit the formula fixed in its earlier March 2021 order, treating that as a settled one-time pandemic measure, and retained the earlier direction that the government keep allowing movement for time-bound legal, educational, and job-related purposes in COVID containment zones.

Lesson Learnt

This order fixed the exact countrywide cut-off date (03.10.2021) by which the COVID-era blanket extension of court and tribunal filing deadlines ended: litigants, lawyers, and tribunals needed this date to correctly calculate limitation periods for matters whose deadlines fell during the pandemic.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case