The Property Company (P) Ltd vs Rohinten Daddy Mazda

insc-2026-33 Supreme Court of India 7 January 2026 • CIVIL APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2026 • 106 min read
29 cases cited (0 SG, 29 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Practice Areas

Act the provisions of the Limitation Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Arora that the principles underlying certain provisions of the Act, 1963 Articles under the Third Division of the Schedule to the Act, 1963 Assuming that the Limitation Act, 1963 CLB to apply the Act, 1963 Canara Bank (supra) was very specific to the Act, 1992 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Companies Act, 1956 Companies Act, 2013 Constitution which ought to be held as solely capable of applying the provisions of the Act, 1963 Customs Act, 1962 Erstwhile Act Erstwhile Act and certain provisions from the Act, 2013 Erstwhile Act and the Act, 2013 Even the applications as regards the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 General Clauses Act states that the District Judge in any Act In the phased manner of implementation of the provisions of the Act, 2013 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 Keeping in view the object of the Act, 1992 Limitation Act, 1963 NCLT also would have been empowered to apply the Act, 1963 NCLT and the NCLAT respectively to apply the provisions of the Act, 1963 NCLT was explicitly empowered to apply the provisions of the Act, 1963 Nupur Mitra (supra) did not conclusively hold that the Act, 1963 Part III of the Limitation Act, 1963 RDB Act Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Sales Tax Act, 1948 Schedule to the Act, 1963 Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 Several decisions that came subsequent to Parson Tools (supra) have also reinforced that the Act, 1963 Several provisions of the Act, 2013 Since it is now judicially recognized that the principles contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 Since the general rule is that the Act, 1963 Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 Telegraph Act aforesaid legislation did not expressly make the provisions of the Act, 1963 implementation of the provisions of the Act, 2013 provisions of the Act, 1963 provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 purposes for which the Act, 1963

Judges (2)

J.B. Pardiwala Delivered R. Mahadevan Coram

Parties (2)

The Property Company (P) Ltd. Appellant Rohinten Daddy Mazda Respondent

Case Significance

The Property Company (P) Ltd vs Rohinten Daddy Mazda is a Supreme Court of India decision dated January 7, 2026 (citation: insc-2026-33). Civil appeal concerning whether the Company Law Board could condone a delay of 249 days in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the CLB as a quasi-judicial body lacked the power to condone delay and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The bench comprised Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The judgment was delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

This case has been cited by 1 subsequent judgment. The judgment references 29 case citations.

Summary

Civil appeal concerning whether the Company Law Board could condone a delay of 249 days in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the CLB as a quasi-judicial body lacked the power to condone delay and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply.

What was the outcome of The Property Company (P) Ltd vs Rohinten Daddy Mazda?

Civil appeal concerning whether the Company Law Board could condone a delay of 249 days in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holdin...

Statutes Cited

Act the provisions of the Limitation Act
s 111
aforesaid legislation did not expressly make the provisions of the Act, 1963
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
s 34 s 34(3)
Arora that the principles underlying certain provisions of the Act, 1963
Articles under the Third Division of the Schedule to the Act, 1963
Assuming that the Limitation Act, 1963
Canara Bank (supra) was very specific to the Act, 1992
CLB to apply the Act, 1963
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Companies Act, 1956
s 111A
Companies Act, 2013
s 111 s 58 s 58(3)
Constitution which ought to be held as solely capable of applying the provisions of the Act, 1963
Customs Act, 1962
s 128
Erstwhile Act
s 10E s 10F s 111 s 111(3) s 111(4) s 111A
Erstwhile Act and certain provisions from the Act, 2013
Erstwhile Act and the Act, 2013
Even the applications as regards the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
General Clauses Act states that the District Judge in any Act
s 3(17)
implementation of the provisions of the Act, 2013
In the phased manner of implementation of the provisions of the Act, 2013
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
s 16(3)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Keeping in view the object of the Act, 1992
Limitation Act, 1963
s 29(2) s 4 s 5 s 6
NCLT also would have been empowered to apply the Act, 1963
NCLT and the NCLAT respectively to apply the provisions of the Act, 1963
NCLT was explicitly empowered to apply the provisions of the Act, 1963
Nupur Mitra (supra) did not conclusively hold that the Act, 1963
Part III of the Limitation Act, 1963
provisions of the Act, 1963
provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963
purposes for which the Act, 1963
RDB Act
s 30(1)
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
s 30
Sales Tax Act, 1948
Schedule to the Act, 1963
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963
Several decisions that came subsequent to Parson Tools (supra) have also reinforced that the Act, 1963
Several provisions of the Act, 2013
Since it is now judicially recognized that the principles contained in the Limitation Act, 1963
Since the general rule is that the Act, 1963
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992
Telegraph Act
s 16 s 16(4) s 34

Cases Cited (29)

IN (29)
(1969) 1 SCC 873 (1970) 1 SCR 51 (1975) 4 SCC 22 (1975) 4 SCC 302 (1976) 1 SCC 392 (1976) 4 SCC 634 (1985) 3 SCC 590 (1996) 9 SCC 414 (1998) 3 SCC 23 (2000) 3 SCC 607 (2003) 8 SCC 431 (2004) 11 SCC 472 (2004) 4 SCC 252 (2004) 4 SCC 311 (2008) 7 SCC 169 (2010) 9 SCC 183 (2011) 6 SCC 739 (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 510 (2015) 7 SCC 58 (2017) 16 SCC 137 (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 528 (2018) 5 SCC 575 (2019) 11 SCC 633 (2019) 2 SCC 455 (2019) 7 SCC 108 (2021) 7 SCC 313 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 2026 INSC 33 AIR 1985 SC 111

Cited By (1)

insc-2026-33
The Property Company (P) Ltd vs Rohinten Daddy Mazda

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official India Courts portal.

Read on Indian Kanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (insc-2026-33)