Savings
Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with savings. Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872). The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1964.
(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).
(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.
(4) Sections 25 and 26 and the definition of "easement" in section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), may for the time being extend.
Section 29, The Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ongc LTD vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp(l)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a special statute (such as the Electricity Act, 2003) prescribes a specific limitation period with a defined outer limit (120 days under Section 125), that limitation is mandatory and reflects fundamental public policy favoring expeditious resolution. Neither Article 142 of the Constitution nor Section 5 of the Limitation Act can extend such limitation period beyond the statutory outer limit. An order previously condoning delay beyond the prescribed limit should be recalled and ignored. The preliminary objection based on such non-condonable delay is maintainable and must be accepted, resulting in dismissal of the appeal without consideration of merits.
On this section: Deals with application of the Act to special legislations. Court noted that Electricity Act is special legislation within meaning of Section 29(2) and therefore special limitation provisions must be followed.
-
Patel Brothers vs State of Assam
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The VAT Act is a complete code prescribing its own limitation periods and condonation provisions at each appellate level. Section 84 of the VAT Act, by specifically making only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable, necessarily implies exclusion of other provisions including Section 5. This exclusion is further supported by the scheme of the VAT Act which provides express condonation powers at lower appellate levels (Sections 79 and 80) but deliberately omits such provision at the revision level (Section 81), indicating clear legislative intent to exclude Section 5 condonation at the revision stage. The High Court has no power to condone delay in filing revision petitions beyond the prescribed 60-day period.
On this section: Makes Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable to special laws unless expressly excluded; interpreted in context of VAT Act's Section 84
-
Arunoday Singh vs Lee Anne Elton
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which excludes the application of the Limitation Act to suits and proceedings under laws relating to marriage and divorce, applies only to original proceedings (suits) and not to appeals from decrees or orders in matrimonial matters. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (condonation of delay) apply to appeals from matrimonial decrees, and such appeals can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The word 'proceeding' in Section 29(3) must be interpreted using the principle of noscitur a sociis to mean original proceedings in the nature of suits, not appellate proceedings.
On this section: Provides that where special law prescribes different limitation period, provisions of Sections 4 to 24 apply only insofar as not expressly excluded by special law
-
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, as applicable in the State of Goa, shall govern the rights of succession and inheritance of Goan domiciles in respect of all their properties, whether situated within Goa or outside Goa in any other part of India. The Portuguese Civil Code is an Indian law (not a foreign law) as it was adopted by the Indian Parliament through the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962. As a special law and local law applicable to Goan domiciles, it prevails over the general Indian Succession Act, 1925. There must be unity in succession, with all properties of the deceased considered as one unit for calculating the legitime and determining the rights of legal heirs. Article 24 of the Portuguese Civil Code has no applicability to Goan domiciles who are Indian citizens living in India. The grant of probate of a will does not affect the rights of legal heirs under succession laws.
On this section: Cited to establish that Portuguese Civil Code is a local law within meaning of this section
-
Thakker Shipping P. LTD vs Commr. of Customs(general)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Appellate Tribunal possesses the competence to invoke Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 to condone delays in making applications under Section 129D(4) of the Act, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for non-presentation of the application within the prescribed period. This competence arises from the explicit language of Section 129D(4) which provides that applications made by the Commissioner shall be heard as if they were appeals against adjudicating authority orders and that the provisions of the Act regarding appeals, so far as they may be applicable, shall apply to such applications. Consequently, Section 129A(5) stands incorporated into Section 129D(4) by way of legal fiction, and the Tribunal must give effect to this incorporation.
On this section: Regarding applicability of limitation provisions to specific statutes; discussed in context of whether Limitation Act applies to Customs Act proceedings
-
P. Radha Bai vs P. Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded from application to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The express exclusion is inferred from the language of Section 34(3), particularly the phrase 'but not thereafter' which creates an absolute outer boundary of 120 days for challenging arbitral awards. This exclusion is also necessarily implied from the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act, which is to provide speedy dispute resolution with finality and certainty of awards. Once a party receives an arbitral award, the three-month limitation period commences, and subsequent fraud or mistake by the other party cannot defer the commencement of this period or extend the outer 120-day boundary. The principle of 'unbreakability' of the limitation period, enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, precludes any extension beyond the prescribed period.
On this section: Critical provision establishing that special laws prescribe different limitation periods and Sections 4-24 apply only if not expressly excluded; forms basis of entire analysis
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 29
What have the courts held on Section 29 of the Limitation Act?
Ongc LTD vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp(l) (01 Mar 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Deals with application of the Act to special legislations. Court noted that Electricity Act is special legislation within meaning of Section 29(2) and therefore special limitation provisions must be followed. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 29 of the Limitation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Limitation Act 29, section 29 Limitation Act, section 29 of the Limitation Act. People searching for it also type limitation act 29 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ongc LTD vs Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp(l) (01 Mar 2017).
What should I read with Section 29 of the Limitation Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 2 (Definitions), section 3 (Bar of limitation), section 4 (Expiry of prescribed period when court is closed), section 24 (Computation of time mentioned in instruments), and on 2 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 29 of the Limitation Act come into force?
Section 29 of the Limitation Act, cited as Limitation Act 29, came into force on 01 Jan 1964, having been enacted on 05 Oct 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 30. Provision for suits, etc., for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908557 words
- 17. Effect of fraud or mistake401 words
- 2. Definitions363 words
- 15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases347 words
- 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction312 words
- 6. Legal disability283 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.