Dr.

ShakuntalaMisra National Rehabilitation University,

Lucknow

ASSIGNMENT ON

LAW OF PLEADING DRAFTING AND CONVEYANCING

“DELAY/LACHES/LIMITATIONS”

(UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ASST.PROF.GULAB RAI)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr.Alankar Sinha(advocate) / Asst.Prof.Dr Gulab Rai ASHISH SINGH

Faculty of Law, DSMNRU B.Com.LL.B(Hons.)

Mohan Road, 7th Semester

Lucknow Roll.No- 18

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

II. DOCTRINE OF LACHES.................................................................................................... 4

III. Doctrine of Estoppels............................................................................................................. 5

IV. Major types ............................................................................................................................ 6

V. Elements of Laches ................................................................................................................ 7

VI. Laches and Acquiescence ...................................................................................................... 9

VII. LAW OF LIMITATION ..................................................................................................... 10

VIII.BAR OF LIMITATION..................................................................................................... 12

IX. Judicial Actions…………………………………………………………………………….13

X.conclusion……………………………………………..………………………………………20

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 16

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The research on “delay/laches/limitations” is a part of drafting, pleading and conveyancing

semester assignment. I am grateful to the subject faculty, prof. ALANKAR SINHA, for deputing
me to research under his guidance. My humble regards to the authors whose work has been referred
and is mentioned in the bibliography.

This assignment is a compilation of historical to contemporary emergence on the subject area of

research i.e“delay/laches/limitations”

3|Page
 I. Introduction

Laches 1
is an “unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim.” In a way that prejudices the
[opposing] party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, or doctrine. The person
invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights,” and that, as a result of
this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff’s original
claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim’s
being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin,

The French Philosophers ones said in the way of defining Laches as being:

“Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit.”

Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones (that is, those who sleep on their rights.

A successful defense of laches will find the court denying the request for equitable relief. However,
even if equitable relief is not available, the party may still have an action at law if the statute of
limitations has not run out.

Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, laches is an affirmative defense, which
means that the burden of asserting laches is on the party responding to the claim to which it applies.
“When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense
on a motion to dismiss.” 2

II. DOCTRINE OF LACHES

“Doctrine of laches” is based upon maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who
slumber on their rights. It is defined as neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together

1
Edited by, Bryan A. Garner, “Black’s Law Dictionary”, 8th Edition, 2004, Thomson West Publishers.

2
Solow v. Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001); Simons v. United States, 452 F.2d
1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based, in part, on laches where papers “reveal no
reason for the inordinate and prejudicial delay”)

4|Page
 with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to adverse party, operates as bar
in court of equity.3 The neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time under
circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law, should have been done.

In most contexts, an essential element of laches is the requirement that the party invoking the
doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the defendant is in a worse
position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. For example, the delay in
asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded, or
assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been distributed in the
meantime, or the property in question may already have been sold, or evidence or testimony may
no longer be available to defend against the claim.

A defense lawyer raising the defense of laches against a motion for injunctive relief (a form of
equitable relief) might argue that the plaintiff comes “waltzing in at the eleventh hour” when it is
now too late to grant the relief sought, at least not without causing great harm that the plaintiff
could have avoided. In certain types of cases (for example, cases involving time-sensitive matters,
such as elections), a delay of even a few days is likely to be met with a defense of laches, even
where the applicable statute of limitations might allow the type of action to be commenced within
a much longer time period.

III. Doctrine of Estoppels

Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines
that preclude “a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in
contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative
officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied.”

This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or variation), which meant “stopper
plug”, referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb
“estop” which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning “stop up, impede.”

Where a court finds that a party has done something warranting a form of estoppel, that party is
said to be “estopped” from making certain related arguments or claiming certain related rights.

3
. Wooded Shores Property Owners Ass’n Inc. v. Mathews, 37 Ill. App.3d 334, 345 N.E.2d. 186, 189.

5|Page
The defendant is said to be “estopped” from presenting the related defence, or the plaintiff is said
to be “estopped” from making the related argument against the defendant. Lord Coke stated, “It is
called an estoppel or conclusion, because a man’s own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his
mouth to allege or plead the truth.

Because estoppel is so factually dependent, it is perhaps best understood by considering specific

examples.

IV. Major types

The main species of estoppel under English, Australian, and American laws are:

1. Reliance-based estoppels—these involve one party relying on something the other party
has done or said. The party who performed/spoke is the one who is estopped. Under English
law, this class includes estoppels by representation of fact, promissory estoppel and
proprietary estoppel4. Although some authorities have used language to suggest reliance-
based estoppels are mere rules of evidence, they are rules of substantive law. Estoppel by
representation of fact (English law name), equitable estoppel (American law)
2. Equitable estoppel (in English law)
3. Proprietary estoppels
4. Promissory estoppels.
5. Estoppel by record—This frequently arises as issue/cause of action estoppel or judicial
estoppel where the orders or judgments made in previous legal proceedings prevent the
parties from relitigating the same issues or causes of action,
6. Estoppel by deed (often regarded as technical or formal estoppels)—Where rules of
evidence prevent a litigant from denying the truth of what was said or done
7. Estoppel by silence—Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he
had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a
disadvantage.
8. Laches—estoppels in equity by delay. Laches has been considered both a reliance-based
estoppel, and a sui generis estoppels.

4
(See Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol 16(2), 2003)

6|Page
 V. Elements of Laches

1. Unreasonable lapse of time.

2. Neglect to assert a right or claim.

3. To the detriment of another.

If these three elements are met, then the Doctrine of Laches will act as a bar in court.If an adverse
party unreasonably delays informing you of a right or claim and this results in permanent damage
to your ability to defend your self then such a claim may be barred from court.

1. Unreasonable lapse of time:-

A defense to an equitable action that bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s undue
delay in seeking relief. Laches is a defense to a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks equitable
relief. Cases in Equity are distinguished from cases at law by the type of remedy, or judicial relief,
sought by the plaintiff. Generally, law cases involve a problem that can be solved by the payment
of monetary damages. Equity cases involve remedies directed by the court against a party. Types
of equitable relief include Injunction, where the court orders a party to do or not to do something;
declaratory relief, where the court declares the rights of the two parties to a controversy; and
accounting, where the court orders a detailed written statement of money owed, paid, and held.
Courts have complete discretion in equity, and weigh equitable principles against the facts of the
case to determine whether relief is warranted. The rules of equity are built on a series of legal
maxims, which serve as broad statements of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are
self-evident. The basis of equity is contained in the Maxim “Equity will not suffer an injustice.”
Other maxims present reasons for not granting equitable relief. Laches is one such defense.

2. Neglect to assert a right or claim:-

A neglect to assert a right or claim may operate as a right to waiver. A waiver is the voluntary
relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege. While a waiver is often in writing,
sometimes a person’s actions can act as a waiver. An example of a written waiver is a disclaimer,
which becomes a waiver when accepted. Other names for waivers are exculpatory clauses,

7|Page
releases, or hold harmless clauses. Sometimes the elements of “voluntary” and “known” are
established by a legal fiction. In this case, one is presumed to know one’s rights and that those
rights are voluntarily relinquished if not asserted at the time. In civil procedure, certain arguments
must be raised in the first objection that a party submits to the court, or else they will be deemed
waived. The following represent a general overview of considerations; specifics may vary
dramatically depending on the jurisdiction. Key factors that some courts (depending on
jurisdiction) may look at when determining the applicability of a waiver:

• In some jurisdictions, one may not prospectively waive liability for some or all intentional
activities.

• Waivers generally must be made voluntarily and with the full knowledge (or the ability to know)
of the right being waived.

• The waiver should be unambiguous and clear to a reasonable person.

• In some jurisdictions (not including the United States), it may be necessary that the parties to the
waiver have equal bargaining power.

• A waiver may have limited application where one contracts for an “essential service” such that
it may violate public policy for liability to be waived.

• In the case of Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee5, the United
States Supreme Court decided that when a court orders a party to produce proof on a certain point,
and that party refuses to comply with the court’s order, the court may deem that refusal to be a
waiver of the right to contest that point and assume that the proof would show whatever the
opposing party claims that it would.

• In that court case, the defendant had argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it but
refused a court order to produce evidence of this lack of jurisdiction. The defendant argued the
circular logic that, because the court lacked jurisdiction, the court had no authority to issue an order
to show proof of the lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and determined

5
, 456 U.S. 694 (1982)

8|Page
that the defendant’s refusal to comply waived the right to contest jurisdiction, just as if it had never
contested jurisdiction at all.

3. To the detriment of another:-

In the happening of an event when the disadvantage of the party allows the other party to not to
assert the right or the claim within the reasonable time happens to be an element of laches.In the
event of causing loss of marriage of the defendant the petitioner may not present the original
photographs of the marriage so that the marriage is held null and void. And if the petitioner comes
to know about the same after the lapse of reasonable time it might be the case of laches and the
court may may presume the same.

VI. Laches and Acquiescence

Acquiescence, consenting by remaining silent, relates to the failure in objecting to the use of the
label and to the registration of the label as a trademark while laches is the undue delay in asserting
a right or bringing a suit or complaint which may be used as a defense if loss or prejudice is proved
to have been caused by the plaintiff’s delay. Acquiescence implies positive acts, a course of
conduct inconsistent with the claim for exclusive right. The Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene
Industries (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia 6 held that in cases of infringement of a trademark
or a copyright, it is well settled that normally an injunction must follow. It was observed that mere
delay in bringing an action is not sufficient to defeat the grant of an injunction in such cases. The
grant of an injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the
infringed trademark was dishonest.

In Swaran Singh Trading as Appliances Emporium v. M/s Usha Industries (India) New Delhi7,
this Court held that registration of a trademark gives an exclusive right of use to the proprietor of
the registered trademark with the condition that if there is a user prior to the date of registration,
then that user may continue, the effect of which is that even if there is some delay in enforcing the
statutory right, the exclusive right of user cannot be lost. The principles governing other types of
injunctions are not to be readily applied to the infringement of a trademark. It is the duty of the
Court to protect a registered trademark because in such a case the public is deceived into

6
((2004) 3 SCC 90)
7
(AIR 1986 Delhi 343)

9|Page
purchasing the defendant’s goods on the belief that they are the plaintiff’s goods. An injunction
cannot be refused even if there is some delay in such a case because that would tantamount to
permitting a fraud being practiced on unwary customers. It was further held that a delay in the
matter of seeking an injunction may be a ground for refusing it in certain circumstances but a
statutory right cannot be lost by delay. The defence of laches or inordinate delay is a defence in
equity. If there is honest concurrent use by the defendant, then inordinate delay and laches may
defeat the claim of damages or rendition of account but the relief of injunction should not be
refused keeping in mind the interest of the general public.8

The defendants had filed another suit which alleged that as the plaintiff did not use the trademark
‘Fedders’ for a period of more than 5 years, it be removed from the register, which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge and also in appeal on the ground that the plaintiff ably satisfied the
court that non-use of the trademark was due to special circumstances in the trade.

VII. LAW OF LIMITATION

The Code of Civil Procedure confers a right to appeal, but does not prescribe a period of limitation
for filing an appeal. The Limitation Act, 1963, however, provides the period of filing up appeals.
It states that the appeals against a decree or order can be filed in a High Court within ninety days
and in any other court in thirty days from the date of the decree or order appealed against. It is,
therefore, provided that Courts of Law cannot be approached beyond fixed period. In civil matters,
the limit is provided in Limitation Act, 1963. The 'Law of Limitation' prescribes the time-limit for
different suits within, which an aggrieved person can approach the court for redress or justice. The
suit, if filed after the exploration of time-limit, is struck by the law of limitation. It's basically
meant to protect the long and established user and to indirectly punish persons who go into a long
slumber over their rights.9

The statutory law was established in stages. The very first Limitation Act was enacted for all courts
in India in 1859. And finally took the form of Limitation Act in 1963. A citizen is not expected to
master the various provisions which provide for limitation in different matters but certain basic
knowledge in this regard is necessary. For instance, Section 12 of the Limitation Act lays down

8
M/s Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s India Stationery Products Co. and Ors., AIR 1990 Delhi 19.
9
Justice S A Kader’s Law of Limitation and Prescription , 13 th edition , 2011 , Lexis Nexis.

10 | P a g e
certain guidelines regarding computation of limitation period. It says that in computing the period
of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned,
shall be excluded. Further, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the
time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from shall be
excluded. However, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application
for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded.

Section 14 of the act, similarly, says that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, the
time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting in civil proceedings, whether in a court of
first instance or of appeal or revision against the defendant shall be excluded where the proceedings
relate to the same matter in a court which is unable to entertain it on account of defect of
jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature.

What does limitation period mean?

The law prescribes different periods within which a person who has a grievance should go to court.
For example, if somebody has borrowed your money and not returned it, you should approach the
court within three years from the date you lent the money. If you don't go to the court within that
time, the courts will not be of help to recover your money. This is called the limitation period.
After the limitation period, you cannot enforce your rights in a court. The Limitation Act
1963prescribes different limitation periods for different kinds of claims. Some other Acts such as
the Consumer Protection Act also prescribe limitation periods

In the bare act:-

Bar of limitation (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) every suit
instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed
although limitation has not been set up as defense;

(1) For the purposes of this Act,

(a) A suit is instituted,

(i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;

(ii) in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue is a pauper is made; and

11 | P a g e
(ii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the court, when the
claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;

(b) any claim by way of a set-off or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be
deemed to have been instituted-

(i) in the case of a set-off, on the dame date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded;

(ii) in the case a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court;

(c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented
to the proper officer of that court.

Short title, extent and commencement - (1) This Act may be called the Limitation Act,1963.

2. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

3. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may be notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint.

VIII. BAR OF LIMITATION

Subject to provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Act (i.e. Limitation Act),every suit instituted, appeal
preferred and application made after the ‘prescribed period’ shall be dismissed, although limitation
has not been set up as a defence. [section 3(1)]. - - ‘Period of limitation’ means the period of
limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the schedule to the Act and ‘prescribed
period’ means the period of limitation computed as per provisions of the Act. [section 2(j)].

PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE TO THE ACT – The period has been prescribed
in Schedule to the Act. Generally, it is as follows – (a) 3 years for a suit relating to accounts,
contracts, declarations, decrees, suits relating to movable property, recovery of law suit under a
contract etc. (b) 12 years for suits relating to possession of immovable property and 30 years for
mortgaged property (c) One year for suit relating to torts (3 years for compensation in certain cases
(d) 30 to 90 days in case of appeals under Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code. - -

12 | P a g e
Period of filing appeal and application can be extended if proper cause is shown (but not the suit)
[section 5].10

IF COURT IS CLOSED ON LAST DAY – If court is closed on last day of limitation, suit,
appeal or application can be filed on next day when Court reopens. [section 4].

CONTINUOUS RUNNING OF TIME – When once period of limitation starts running, it

continues even if there is any subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an
application. [section 9]. - - However, if at the time when person is entitled to file a suit or make
application, if a person was disabled (as he was minor or insane), the period of limitation will start
after the disability is removed. [section 6(1)].

IX. Judicial Actions

Raj Bahadur Singh & Another v. D.J. & Others11

According to the learned Judge the application had been rejected on two grounds firstly being
barred by limitation and secondly being without any valid ground. Thus, the appeal filed by the
respondents was fully maintainable. He further submitted that the learned District Judge vide order
dated11.2.2002 had admitted the appeal while over ruling the preliminary objections and the writ
petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. In the present case the question is as to whether
an appeal lies against an order passed by the trial Court wherein it had by a common order rejected
both the applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on the
ground that the application is barred by Limitation and no ground for condonation of delay has
been made out, or a revision lies. If it is held that no appeal lies then the order admitting the appeal
is wholly without jurisdiction and in such a circumstance a writ petition is maintainable.

Arun Kumar v S E Railways: Appeal has been made in regard to representation against the
seniority list to the administration in 1967 which was replied in 1973. The Supreme Court of India
held that there is no inordinate delay in filing the petition in view of the fact that the railway
administration was itself guilty of delay.

10
Justice S A Kader’s Law of Limitation and Prescription , 13 th edition , 2011 , Lexis Nexis
11
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.12718 of 2002

13 | P a g e
Mohd Ismail v State of Karnataka: Karnataka High Court ignored a four year delay in view of
serious adverse consequences to the petitioner.

M S Mudol (Dr) v S D Halegkar, Supreme Court held that the challenge of appointment of
principal on grounds of not fulfillment of the required qualification after nine years of appointment
was not allowed.

Ramachandra Shanker Deodhar v State of Maharashtra: A case of seniority between two groups
of Government employees arose. The Cause of Action arose in 1968 but the writ petition under
Article 226 was claimed under violation of Fundamental Rights. The court has been assigned the
role of a sentinel on the qui vive for protection of fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to
be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like.

Jawahar Lal Sazawal v State of J & K: A writ petition filed before High Court in 1982 and coming
for hearing after 16 years long gap is not barred by laches due to special circumstances.

X. CONCLUSION

14 | P a g e
In most contexts, an essential element of laches is the requirement that the party invoking the
doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay. In other words, the defendant is in a worse
position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. For example, the delay in
asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded, or
assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been distributed in the
meantime, or the property in question may already have been sold, or evidence or testimony may
no longer be available to defend against the claim.

A defense lawyer raising the defense of laches against a motion for injunctive relief (a form of
equitable relief) might argue that the plaintiff comes "waltzing in at the eleventh hour" when it is
now too late to grant the relief sought, at least not without causing great harm that the plaintiff
could have avoided. In certain types of cases (for example, cases involving time-sensitive matters,
such as elections), a delay of even a few days is likely to be met with a defense of laches, even
where the applicable statute of limitations might allow the type of action to be commenced within
a much longer time period.12

A successful defense of laches will find the court denying the request for equitable relief. However,
even if equitable relief is not available, the party may still have an action at law if the statute of
limitations has not run out.

12
Justice S A Kader’s Law of Limitation and Prescription , 13 th edition , 2011 , Lexis Nexis

15 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Justice S A Kader’s Law of Limitation and Prescription , 13th edition , 2011 , Lexis Nexis

2. Edited by, Bryan A. Garner, “Black’s Law Dictionary”, 8th Edition, 2004, Thomson West

Publishers.

3. Justice C.K. Thakker’s , “Civil Procedure Code” , 5th Edition , 2011, Eastern Book

Company.

4. INDIAN LIMITATION ACT, 1963

5. Civil Procedure code, 1908.

6. Specific relief act, 1963

16 | P a g e