IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Art. 141 : COVID-19 –Limitation Extended from March 15 , 2020 till February 28 , 2022 – Relief for litigants and lawyers [Art. 142] On account of the situation posed by COVID 19, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo motu held that to ease the difficulties faced by the litigants and their lawyers across the country in filing their petition/ applications/ suits/ appeals, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022. (Civil) No(s).3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022, M. A. No. 21 of 2022) In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (SC) www.itatinline.org Coram : Chief Justice of India Mr. N.V. RAMANA and Justice Mr. L. NAGESWARA
Result: Dismissed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: Art. 141
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Art. 141 : COVID-19 –Limitation Extended from March 15 , 2020 till February 28 , 2022 – Relief for litigants and lawyers [Art. 142] On account of the situation posed by COVID 19, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo motu held that to ease the difficulties faced by the litigants and their lawyers across the country in filing their petition/ applications/ suits/ appeals, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022. (Civil) No(s).3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022, M. A. No. 21 of 2022) In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (SC) www.itatinline.org Coram : Chief Justice of India Mr. N.V. RAMANA and Justice Mr. L. NAGESWARA
- Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
- How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?
Material facts and procedural background
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2021 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020
IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2022 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2021 IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020 Order 1. In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic.
Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following: i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and ii. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and iii. pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions
The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.
Operative decision and relief
The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.
Official source and later-history control
Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING
A sanitized readable judgment copy is packaged; official-primary retrieval and byte replacement remain pending.
Later-history status: REVIEW_CURATIVE_DOCKET_CHECK_PENDING
No later-treatment determination is claimed; review, appeal, SLP and subsequent-treatment checks remain open as stated.
Release decision: Published as index,follow with source and later-history limitations disclosed. Closure register checked 2026-08-11; unresolved official-primary and later-treatment checks remain live controls, not hidden assumptions.
Ratio and legal principle
The narrow proposition associated with IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition concerns art. 141 : covid-19 –limitation extended from march 15 , 2020 till february 28 , 2022 – relief for litigants and lawyers [art. 142] on account of the situation posed by covid 19, the hon’ble supreme court has suo motu held that to ease the difficulties faced by the litigants and their lawyers across the country in filing their petition/ applications/ suits/ appeals, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from march 15, 2020 till february 28, 2022. (civil) no(s).3 of 2020 dated january 10, 2022, m. a. no. 21 of 2022) in re: cognizance for extension of limitation suo motu writ petition (sc) www.itatinline.org coram : chief justice of india mr. n.v. ramana and justice mr. l. nageswara The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No. 665/2021 in SMW(P)(C) No. 3/2020.
For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Dismissed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Art. 141 : COVID-19 –Limitation Extended from March 15 , 2020 till February 28 , 2022 – Relief for litigants and lawyers [Art. 142] On account of the situation posed by COVID 19, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo motu held that to ease the difficulties faced by the litigants and their lawyers across the country in filing their petition/ applications/ suits/ appeals, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022. (Civil) No(s).3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022, M. A. No. 21 of 2022) In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (SC) www.itatinline.org Coram : Chief Justice of India Mr. N.V. RAMANA and Justice Mr. L. NAGESWARA Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—Art. 141—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.
The authority level is Supreme Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.
Practitioner action points
- Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
- Match the statutory version of Art. 141 and the decision date 2022-01-10; do not assume the current text is identical.
- Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
- Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
- Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | A sanitized readable judgment copy is packaged; official-primary retrieval and byte replacement remain pending. |
| Later history | REVIEW_CURATIVE_DOCKET_CHECK_PENDING |
| Repository release | PUBLISH_READY · index,follow |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment’s narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The dispute raises the same issue described above.
- The same statutory provisions and materially similar version apply.
- The procedural stage, burden of proof and challenged action are comparable.
- The documentary record answers the same evidentiary questions considered by the forum.
Weaker or distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes, limits or explains the position.
- The statutory period, jurisdiction or procedural route differs.
- The evidence or chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured, waived or absent in the user’s case.
Detailed reliance and distinction analysis
Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition, the proceeding is M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No. 665/2021 in SMW(P)(C) No. 3/2020, and the decision is dated 2022-01-10. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.
Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Chief Justice N.V. Ramana; Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.
Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Art. 141. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.
Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.
Remedy check. The recorded result is Dismissed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.
History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_CURATIVE_DOCKET_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition?
Art. 141 : COVID-19 –Limitation Extended from March 15 , 2020 till February 28 , 2022 – Relief for litigants and lawyers [Art. 142] On account of the situation posed by COVID 19, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo motu held that to ease the difficulties faced by the litigants and their lawyers across the country in filing their petition/ applications/ suits/ appeals, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended with effect from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022. (Civil) No(s).3 of 2020 dated January 10, 2022, M. A. No. 21 of 2022) In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Suo Motu Writ Petition (SC) www.itatinline.org Coram : Chief Justice of India Mr. N.V. RAMANA and Justice Mr. L. NAGESWARA
Which forum and case number decided it?
Supreme Court of India decided M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No. 665/2021 in SMW(P)(C) No. 3/2020 on 2022-01-10.
Who constituted the coram?
Hon'ble Chief Justice N.V. Ramana; Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.
What result is recorded?
Dismissed. Read the operative paragraphs above and the full packaged record for the precise relief.
Which provisions should be checked?
Art. 141. Verify the version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the same core issue, statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence are present.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, relief sought, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate, review, SLP and later-treatment history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- Art. 141 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
- CCE Aurangabad Vs Videocon Industries Limited — Supreme Court of India · Dismissed
- Pr. CIT (Central)-1 v. Surendra L. Hiranandani — Bombay High Court · Dismissed
- Anil Ramchandran Pillai v. NFAC — Bombay High Court · Dismissed
- Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Kamal Ahsan — Supreme Court · Dismissed
Related Finin2min resources
- Case Law Hub
- Search all 592 judgments
- Explore Appeals, Revision, Rectification & Procedure
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.