Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Pathapati Subba Reddy v Special Deputy Collector (LA) — the Supreme Court's current summary on condonation: section 5 is construed liberally, section 3 strictly, and even sufficient cause need not be excused Supreme CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  The other side says every day's delay must be explained; my client says the courts take a liberal view. Which line does the Supreme Court now apply?
  Both, in a stated order. The Court held that s.5 of the Limitation Act is to be construed liberally but s.3, being mandatory and substantive, strictly; that a liberal or justice-oriented approach cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation and revive stale or dead matters; that the existence of sufficient cause is a condition precedent to the discretion; and that even where sufficient cause is established the discretion may still be refused for inordinate delay, negligence or want of due diligence. A delay of 5,659 days was not condoned and the special leave petition was dismissed.
• Office of the Chief Post Master General v Living Media India Ltd — a government department has no separate period of limitation, and red tape is not sufficient cause Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The department has filed its appeal hundreds of days late and its condonation application recites nothing but a list of file movements. Does the usual latitude for government litigants save it?
  Not on an explanation of that kind. The Supreme Court refused to condone a delay of 427 days by the Postal Department, holding that the department could not claim a separate period of limitation when it had competent persons familiar with court proceedings, that the plea of impersonal machinery and note-making cannot be accepted given modern technology, and that the law of limitation binds the Government like everyone else. The appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay alone and the merits were left open.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.