I. Basic Information & Synopsis

Case Title: The Property Company (P) Ltd. vs Rohinten Daddy Mazda

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Citation: 2026 INSC 33

Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan (Bench of Two Judges)

Date of Judgment: January 07, 2026

Synopsis: This judgment addresses the pivotal issue of whether a quasi-judicial body, specifically the Company Law Board (CLB), possesses the inherent power to condone delay in filing an appeal under a special statute (Companies Act, 2013) when the statute itself does not confer such power. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the CLB and the High Court, holding that the Limitation Act, 1963, and specifically its Section 5 (condonation of delay), does not automatically apply to tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies. Such a power must be expressly conferred by the statute governing that body. The Court also distinguished between the principles underlying Sections 5 (extension of time) and 14 (exclusion of time) of the Limitation Act, clarifying that while principles akin to Section 14 may be applied by analogy to quasi-judicial bodies in certain circumstances, the discretionary power to extend time under Section 5 cannot be similarly implied.

II. Legal Framework & Precedents

• Primary Legislation:
  The Companies Act, 2013: Section 58(3) prescribes a 30/60-day limitation period for filing an appeal to the Tribunal (then CLB) against a company's refusal to register share transmission. Section 433 (effective 01.06.2016) expressly makes the Limitation Act, 1963, applicable to proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT.
  The Companies Act, 1956 (Erstwhile Act): Section 10E(4C) defined the CLB's powers, granting it specific powers of a civil court but not the power to condone delay. Section 10F provided for appeals to the High Court and allowed condonation of delay for a further 60 days.
  The Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5 grants courts the discretionary power to condone delay in filing appeals/applications upon showing "sufficient cause." Section 14 provides for mandatory exclusion of time spent prosecuting a bona fide proceeding in a wrong forum. Section 29(2) is a savings clause that applies the provisions of the Limitation Act (Sections 4-24) to periods prescribed in special laws, unless expressly excluded, but only when the proceeding is before a "court."

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.