A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in M/s. SS Group Pvt. Ltd. v. Aaditiya J. Garg & Anr. addresses the interplay between statutory limitation under consumer law and extraordinary constitutional powers exercised by the Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic. The dispute arose from consumer complaints filed by flat purchasers alleging deficiency in service due to delayed possession and seeking refund. The builder failed to file its written statement within the mandatory 45-day period prescribed under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission refused to take the written statement on record, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., which categorically held that consumer fora lack power to extend this limitation.

The Supreme Court examined whether the suo motu extension of limitation ordered in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation applied even to proceedings governed by special statutes prescribing non-condonable timelines. The Court held that the pandemic-related order, issued under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, had universal application across all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Since the limitation period expired during the subsistence of the extension order, the delay of four days in filing the written statement was held to be legally condonable. The ruling harmonises strict procedural mandates with constitutional equity during extraordinary circumstances, reaffirming the binding nature of Supreme Court directions during national crises.

Keywords: Consumer Protection Act, Limitation, Covid-19, Written Statement, Article 142, National Commission

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises in the backdrop of unprecedented judicial disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Consumer fora in India are governed by strict procedural timelines, particularly for filing written statements by opposite parties. The Consumer Protection framework aims to ensure expeditious disposal of consumer disputes, which explains the non-extendable nature of the limitation under Section 38. This rigidity was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that consumer courts have no discretion to accept pleadings beyond forty-five days.

However, the onset of the pandemic led the Supreme Court to exercise its plenary constitutional powers by passing a suo motu order extending limitation across all proceedings. This order was intended to mitigate hardship to litigants and lawyers facing mobility restrictions and court closures. The present appeals posed a direct question as to whether such constitutional intervention could override statutory rigidity even where the statute explicitly barred extension.

The National Commission adopted a literal interpretation of the consumer statute and rejected the written statement of the builder. The Supreme Court was therefore required to reconcile procedural discipline under special law with constitutional equity under extraordinary circumstances. The decision carries significance for consumer jurisprudence and for understanding the binding scope of Supreme Court directions issued under Articles 141 and 142 during emergencies.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondents booked residential flats with M/s. SS Group Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer. Alleging failure to deliver possession within the agreed timeframe, the respondents approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking refund of amounts paid. The complaints were registered in the year 2020.

Notices in the consumer complaints were issued by the National Commission in June 2020 and were admittedly received by the appellant on 13 July 2020. Under Section 38(2)(a), the appellant was required to file its written statement within 30 days, extendable by a further 15 days. Accordingly, the primary limitation expired on 12 August 2020, and the extended period expired on 27 August 2020.

The appellant filed its written statement on 31 August 2020, resulting in a delay of four days. The National Commission refused to take the written statement on record, citing the binding precedent of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which prohibited extension beyond forty-five days. Aggrieved by this rejection, the builder approached the Supreme Court by way of civil appeals.

During the pendency of these proceedings, the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020 extending limitation due to Covid-19 was already in force. The core factual issue thus centered on whether the statutory timeline expired during the period covered by the Supreme Court’s extension order.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether statutory limitation under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act could be overridden by the Supreme Court’s Covid-19 limitation extension order?
ii. Whether the National Commission was justified in rejecting the written statement despite the subsistence of the Supreme Court’s extension order?
iii. Whether the delay of four days could be condoned in view of Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the period for filing the written statement expired during the operation of the Supreme Court’s suo motu order. It was argued that the extension applied universally to all proceedings irrespective of whether the limitation was condonable or non-condonable. The appellant contended that rejecting the written statement would cause grave prejudice and defeat substantive justice.

Reliance was placed on In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, wherein the Supreme Court expressly declared that the order was binding on all courts and tribunals. The appellant argued that the National Commission failed to appreciate the constitutional supremacy of this order over statutory timelines.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. and submitted that the Consumer Protection Act mandates strict adherence to timelines. It was argued that consumer justice would be diluted if procedural discipline were relaxed. The respondents chose not to file a counter affidavit and requested disposal of the appeals on legal grounds.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court acknowledged the binding nature of the Constitution Bench decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. but clarified that the said ruling operated in normal circumstances. The Court held that the suo motu extension of limitation issued on 23 March 2020 was a constitutional measure responding to an extraordinary national crisis.

The Court emphasised that the extension order expressly covered all proceedings, irrespective of whether limitation was condonable. Since the appellant’s limitation expired while the order was operative, the delay stood automatically condoned. The Court held that the National Commission erred in ignoring the binding force of Articles 141 and 142. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the written statement was directed to be taken on record.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the case is that Supreme Court orders extending limitation during Covid-19 override statutory timelines, even under special laws prescribing non-extendable periods. Such orders, issued under Articles 141 and 142, have universal and binding application.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that procedural law must serve substantive justice, particularly during national emergencies. Procedural rigidity cannot defeat constitutional equity.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts must apply Supreme Court limitation extensions uniformly.
ii. Statutory timelines expiring during extended periods stand protected.
iii. Consumer fora must balance procedural discipline with constitutional mandates.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces constitutional supremacy over procedural statutes during extraordinary circumstances. It prevents miscarriage of justice caused by mechanical application of limitation law. The ruling preserves the integrity of consumer adjudication while ensuring fairness to litigants affected by systemic disruptions. The decision is a critical precedent on the scope of Article 142 and its role in harmonising law and equity during emergencies.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., as cited in judgment
ii. In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Consumer Protection Act
ii. Constitution of India