- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of W.B And Others v. Kartick Chandra Das And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Order No. 241(W) of 1992, directed the present appellant to grant registration under the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 and to release the corresponding subsidy to the respondents. The appellant filed an intra-court appeal (FMAT No. 3244 of 1992) along with an application for stay; that appeal remains pending.
While the appeal was pending, the respondents initiated contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with the Single Judge’s order. To challenge the contempt notice, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench. By order dated 4-11-1994, the Division Bench dismissed the LPA as time-barred, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was inapplicable. The present matter is an appeal by special leave against that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed in contempt proceedings governed by Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Consequently, whether the delay in filing the appellant’s LPA could be condoned.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- Reliance was placed on Rule 3 of Chapter 8 of the Appellate Side Rules, which requires a memorandum of appeal to be drawn in the form prescribed by Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code but does not itself stipulate any limitation period. On that basis, it was contended that the Limitation Act was not attracted and the Division Bench correctly refused to invoke Section 5.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 expressly provides an appeal to a Division Bench with a limitation period of thirty days, subject to exclusion of the time necessary for obtaining a certified copy. The Court further observed:
- Rule 35 of the High Court’s Contempt Rules applies the Appellate Side Rules, mutatis mutandis, to appeals against contempt orders, and those rules do not expressly bar the applicability of the Limitation Act.
- Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that where a special or local law prescribes a different limitation period, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded.
- Because neither the Contempt of Courts Act nor the relevant High Court rules expressly exclude Section 5, the provision for condonation of delay is attracted to Letters Patent Appeals arising from contempt matters.
Accordingly, the Division Bench erred in concluding that it lacked power to condone delay. The Supreme Court therefore condoned the delay and remitted the appeal for adjudication on merits, explicitly refraining from expressing any view on substantive issues involved in the underlying contempt proceeding.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Delay Condoned; Matter Remitted to the Division Bench for decision on merits.
Immediate Effect: The appellant’s Letters Patent Appeal will now be heard on merits by the Calcutta High Court. Broader Implication: The judgment clarifies that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against orders in contempt proceedings, enabling High Courts to entertain applications for condonation of delay in such matters.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution in Civil Order No. 241(W) of 1992 directed the appellant to grant registration in terms of the West Bengal Cinemas Development Scheme, 1976 and to grant subsidy to the respondents as per the said scheme. The appellant had carried the matter in appeal against the said order in FMAT No. 3244 of 1992 with an application for stay of the operation of the order. We are informed that the appeal is pending. Pending appeal the respondent had taken out contempt proceedings against the appellant for non-enforcement of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. Against the contempt notice, the appellants have filed a Letters Patent appeal to the Division Bench. The Division Bench in the impugned order dated 4-11-1994 passed the order as under:
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the delay in filing this appeal being not condonable as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply the appeal is dismissed. The application under the Limitation Act is also dismissed.”
Thus this appeal by special leave.
4. It is not in dispute that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 an appeal would lie to the Division Bench and limitation of 30 days from the date of the order has been prescribed subject to the exclusion of the time taken for obtaining the certified copy thereof. We have seen that the Appellate Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court applicable to the area other than the city of Calcutta had not expressly excluded the application of the limitation under the Limitation Act.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to contend that by operation of Rule 3 of Chapter 8 of the Appellate Side Rules under the Letters Patent the memorandum of appeal drawn up under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC requires to be complied with as envisaged thereunder since it had not been provided with any limitation. The Division Bench was, therefore, right in holding that the Limitation Act was not extended for an appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is seen that under the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court has framed the Rules. Rule 35 envisages that:
“35. In respect of appeals from the orders of any Judge or Bench of the original side the rules of the original side relating to appeals and in respect of appeals from the order of any Judge or Bench of the appellate side, the rules of the appellate side shall apply mutatis mutandis.”
Therefore, for the appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge for the contempt proceedings by necessary consequences, the procedure prescribed on the appellate side would also be applicable and followed.
6. Section 29 of the Limitation Act envisages ‘Savings’. Sub-section (2) thereof reads thus:
“29. (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.”
7. In consequence, by operation of Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, limitation stands prescribed as a special law under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and limitation in filing Letters Patent appeal stands attracted. In consequence, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act stands attracted to Letters Patent appeal insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded either by special or local law. Since the rules made on the appellate side, either for entertaining the appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent or appeals arising under the contempt of courts, had not expressly excluded, Section 5 of the Limitation Act becomes applicable. We hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply to the appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge for the enforcement by way of a contempt. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The delay stands condoned. Since the High Court had not dealt with the matter on merits, we decline to express any opinion on merits. The case stands remitted to the Division Bench for decision on merits.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Alert