Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.70 seconds)

D.D. Kisan vs K.P. Production on 14 March, 2022

14. Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation vide order dated 10/01/2022 has excluded the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 for computing the period of limitation for any OMP (Comm.) No. 210/2019 D.D. Kisan & Anr. Vs K.P. Production Page 25 of 56 suit, appeal, application or proceedings and the petition under Section 34 of The Act is also eligible for the same. Since the original petition under Section 34 of The Act was not fully compliant of mandatory provisions for a commercial dispute of a specified value, petitioner through Counsel had moved an application under Section 151 CPC on 06/10/2021 with copy of petition duly signed on each page with Statement of Truth and list of documents in a prescribed form, whereas the initially filed petition on 26/11/2019 though was not signed on each and every page by AR of the petitioner but was so signed by AR of the petitioner on the last page with duly sworn affidavit accompanying the petition. Orders of Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation including the last order dated 10/01/2022 come to protection of the petitioner to consider the present petition under Section 34 of The Act to be within the period of limitation as the period of three months from the date 21/12/2019, the date of receipt of copy of order of Ld. Sole Arbitrator under Section 33 of The Act, was the date from which the time begins to run and three months thereof completed on 20/03/2020 i.e., within the period above said which was excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing the said petition under Section 34 of The Act. It is not the case that only bunch of papers without any appropriate affidavit had been filed by petitioner with respect to which Ld. Counsel for respondent/claimant placed implicit reliance upon the cases of (i) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (Sree) & Megha OMP (Comm.) No. 210/2019 D.D. Kisan & Anr. Vs K.P. Production Page 26 of 56 Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (Meil) (supra); (ii) Indira Gandhi National Open University vs Sharat Das & Associates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and (iii) Director-Cum- Secretary vs Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and so no occasion arises to apply these precedents in this case to show petitioner the door of the court. The curable defects have been sought to be cured by petitioner within the period as permissible by Supreme Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) no. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, for which petitioner is found entitled and is so allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms.Steel Stripes Wheels Ltd. vs Ms.Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 February, 2020

20. This Court recently, in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Joint Venture of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL) 2019 SCC Online Del 10456, has laid down certain vital parameters which need to be complied with before a petition can be termed as proper petition, which are as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - J Singh - Full Document

Sharma Kalypso Pvt. Ltd. vs Engineers India Limited on 17 June, 2020

In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (Sree) & Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (Meil), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10456, this Court laid down certain basic parameters, which cumulatively, must be fulfilled, in order to term the filing as a 'proper' filing. Reading the various judgements what emerges, in the opinion of this Court is, that a petition, when filed, can be termed as a 'bunch of papers' when it lacks all the parameters as detailed in the various judgements, cumulatively. However, when the petition as filed substantially complies with most of the parameters, it cannot be said that a mere 'bunch of papers' is filed. This expression is intended to apply to a situation where the petition is filed without Vakalatnama, Statement of Truth, Signatures, Court Fees etc.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - J Singh - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs M/S Hindustan Trading Co on 24 September, 2020

17. It was observed in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs. Joint Ventures of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises, 2019 SCC Online Del 10456 that a reading of these judgments is a pointer to the fact that while in condonation of delay, the courts have been generally liberal but when it comes to Section 34 (3) of the Act, the limitation period is inelastic and meant to be strictly followed.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indira Gandhi National Open University vs M/S Sharat Das & Associates Pvt.Ltd on 4 June, 2020

2019 SCC OnLine 10018, SKS Power Generation vs. ISC Projects Private Limited, 2019 SCC Online Del 8006; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (Sree) & Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (Meil), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10456; Jay Polychem (India) Ltd. v. S.E. Investment Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8848; and Durga Construction (supra); to argue that a petition which is filed with the vital defects is a non-est filing and the date on which a petition, cured of all defects, is filed, is a date of fresh filing and not refiling. Petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court that a valid petition was filed within the period of 120 days and therefore, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 7 - J Singh - Full Document

Virender Mishra vs M/S Bansal Credits Limited on 4 June, 2021

18. It was observed in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs. Joint Ventures of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises, 2019 SCC Online Del 10456 that a reading of judgments is a pointer to the fact that while in condonation of delay, the courts have been generally liberal but when it comes to Section 34 (3) of the Act, the limitation period is inelastic and meant to be strictly followed.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Ocean Fabtex vs M/S Mangal Enterprises on 17 July, 2021

In the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Supra) it has been observed "This in my view is a minimum threshold that should be crossed before the petition is filed and can be treated as a petition in the eyes of law. The rationale behind insisting of these fundamental compliances to be observed while filing a petition, is not far to see. Vakalatnama is an authority which authorizes an 18 advocate to act on behalf of a party as a power of attorney and to carry out certain acts on his behalf. Therefore, the vakalatnama is the first step and a precursor to the preparation of a petition. The statement of truth accompanying a petition or an application is sworn by the deponent who states on oath that the contents of the accompanying petition have been drafted under his instructions and are true and correct to his knowledge or belief..... The statement of truth was not filed as per the format under the Commercial Courts Act; (f) The memo of parties did not contain sufficient details like the parentage, mobile number, email address etc..... Thus, even this final can be only termed as 'non-est' filing.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Bansal Construction Co on 30 July, 2021

The question whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act has been answered in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises (supra) where it was held that from the scheme and language of Section 34 of the Act, the intention of the legislature to exclude the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not manifest. It is well to remember that Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not provide for a fresh period of limitation but only provides for the exclusion of a OMP Comm No. 93/20 UOI Vs. M/s Bansal Construction Co. Page No.24 of 27 certain period. It is an admitted position that on 27.10.2014, the Arbitrator made an award in favour of the appellant and on 31.10.2014, Union of India received a copy of the award. One of the reasons stated by the respondent for delay in filing an application under Order 34 of the 1996 Act was that the departmental office was located at Port Blair, Andaman and it was a time consuming process for obtaining permission from the circle office at Chennai. It was held that the administrative difficulties would not be a valid reason to condone a delay above and beyond the statutory prescribed period under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. It was held that in view of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 34(3), the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in condoning the respondent's delay of 514 days in filing the application.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Puri & Anr. vs S. Suncon Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 10 December, 2021

3. Mr. Ajay Kapur, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAKSHI RAMOLA CM(M) 610/2021 Page 2 of 7 Signing Date:12.12.2021 15:08:10 has submitted that though the original petition under Section 34 was filed by the respondents within the period of 90 days, however, in view of the fact that essential documents such as statement of truth, affidavit, Vakalatnama, etc. were not filed, it was a non-est filing. Attention of the Court has been drawn to various objections put by the registry of this Court on 25th April, 2018, 10th May, 2018 and 1st June, 2018 to contend that the respondent was very casual and negligent in removing the objections marked by the Court and some of these objections went to the very root of the matter. Reliance is placed on the judgments in O.M.P. (COMM) No. 97/2019 titled Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Joint Venture of M/S Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/S Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. (MEIL), OMP (COMM) 380/2019 titled Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Planetcast Technologies Ltd and O.M.P (COMM.)
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - A Bansal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next