Sagufa Ahmed & Ors v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court's three-judge panel, which included Chief Justice Sharad A. Bobde, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, and Justice AS. Bopanna, stated unequivocally, categorically, and convincingly that the order in question only extended the statute. The Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "designated term" in Section 4 of the Limitation Act must be understood to refer to the statute of limitations. It expressly, tastefully, and effectively ruled that the appellant cannot benefit from the order's expansion of the time frame during which a delay is tolerable.
In the instant case titled Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The issue raised for clarification before the Supreme Court was
Whether the lockdown and the court's order extending the deadline for filing proceedings were taken into account by the appellate panel?
With regard to this issue, the Supreme Court pointed to the decision in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Subhash Projects and Marketing Limited and held that the order of this court only extended "the period of limitation" and not the time frame up to which delay can be tolerated in the exercise of discretion granted by the statute. The Supreme Court decided that the phrase "prescribed period" in Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be interpreted to signify anything other than the period of limitation after studying the term "prescribed time" in depth.
The Court categorically stated that,
"The Supreme court delving into the world ‘prescribed period’ held that the expression appearing in section 4 of Limitation Act cannot be construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation.
The order passed by this court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law”.