Section 5 of Limitation Act Must Apply Absent Express Exclusion
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act mandates that Sections 4 to 24 apply to all special laws prescribing different limitation periods unless expressly excluded. Section 74 contains no such express exclusion, and the proviso does not oust Section 5.
The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/S S.V. Global Mill Limited — (2026) INSC 138Core Argument
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act mandates that Sections 4 to 24 apply to all special laws prescribing different limitation periods unless expressly excluded. Section 74 of RFCTLARR contains no such express exclusion, and the proviso does not oust Section 5.
Key Precedents
- Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narian Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 — Established that exclusion of Section 5 requires express or clearly implied peremptory language such as 'shall be dismissed', which is absent in Section 74 of the 2013 Act.
- Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 531 — Held that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in condoning delays by State instrumentalities, and High Courts should avoid pedantry.
Premium Argument
Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.
Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign inBENCH QUESTION
What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?
OPPOSITION COUNTER
The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...
Unlock the Argument Simulator
4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.
Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in