In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). The Court observed that once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions, including Section 18 (acknowledgment of liability), become applicable.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) vs. Clifford D’Souza & Others.

Background of the Case

• NMPT had allotted land to the respondents (licensees) in 2003 for loading and unloading goods, subject to payment of a license fee revisable every five years.
• In 2010, the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) revised the license fee retrospectively from 2007.
• The licensees challenged this revision before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that retrospective revision was impermissible.
• A Single Judge upheld the revision in 2013, but the licensees filed intra-court appeals, which remained pending.

Read Also:- Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Challenges Waqf Amendment Act 2025 in Supreme Court; Seeks Interim Relief to Defer Law’s Implementation

While the appeals were pending, NMPT issued demand notices for the difference in license fees for the period 2007-2010. The licensees objected, stating that the matter was sub-judice and that the demand should await the outcome of the appeals.

Subsequently, the Estate Officer (under the PP Act) issued a show-cause notice in 2015, followed by a recovery order in 2016. The licensees appealed before the District Judge, who quashed the demand, holding that the proceedings were barred by limitation.

The High Court upheld this decision, prompting NMPT to approach the Supreme Court.

1. Limitation Act Applies to PP Act

• The Court rejected the argument that only Section 3 (limitation period) and Article 52 (three-year limit for recovery suits) of the Limitation Act apply.

"Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act," the bench stated.

Read Also:- Not an Illegal Migrant, Cannot Be Left Stateless: Bombay High Court Directs Authorities to Decide Citizenship Plea of Woman Residing in India for 60 Years

2. Acknowledgment of Liability Under Section 18

• Section 18 allows a fresh limitation period if liability is acknowledged in writing.
• The licensees had repeatedly requested deferment of payment due to pending appeals, which the Court deemed an implied acknowledgment of liability.

"The respondents were bound by the notification till set aside by a court. Their objections were only to delay payment," the Court noted.

3. High Court Should Have Waited for Pending Appeals

• The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for deciding the writ petition while intra-court appeals were still pending.

"The High Court should have awaited the outcome of the intra-court appeals, as their decision would directly impact the writ petition," the bench observed.

Read Also:- P&H High Court Slams State for Breach of Contract, Cites Rule of Law

4. Unjust Enrichment Argument

• The Court noted that the licensees had benefited from the delay and could not escape liability on technical grounds.

5. The Supreme Court:

• Set aside the High Court’s order.
• Restored NMPT’s writ petition to be heard after the disposal of pending appeals.
• Clarified that if the appeals are allowed, no retrospective demand would apply. If dismissed, the licensees must pay arrears with interest.

Case Title: NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST & ANR. VERSUS CLIFFORD D SOUZA ETC.ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1796-1828 OF 2024