Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1098 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001

State Of Goa, Rep. By The Executive ... vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited on 26 September, 2002

Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that even though the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (supra) and the learned Single Judge's judgment in Pushpa P. Mulchandani's case (supra) were dealing only with the issue whether the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought, to be extended or not and both the aforesaid judgments do not deal with the specific issue as to whether benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be extended or not,
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Venkateswara Rao Kesanakurti vs The State Of Ap on 23 August, 2024

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering similar provisions, in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Ors., had held that the restriction of the additional period, for which delay may be condoned, in the special statute, effectively excluded Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Ashok Boot Factory on 21 October, 2021

12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent per contra argued that as per the confirmation received from the Postal Department, the speed post no. ED323792014IN was delivered to the addressee on 14.05.2019. The Arbitrator has also confirmed that he had dispatched the award to the parties on 13.05.2019 from the Post Office, Delhi High Court vide postal receipts no. ED323792028IN and ED323792014IN. Ld. Counsel stated that this petition was originally filed on 20.12.2019. Since it was not in accordance with law, it was redrafted and refiled on 30.01.2020 with an application for condonation of delay. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co., 2001 (7) SCC 354 to contend that the Court has no power to extend the limitation beyond three months plus thirty days.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Venkateswara Rao Kesanakurti vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2024

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering similar provisions, in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Ors., had held that the restriction of the additional period, for which delay may be condoned, in the special statute, effectively excluded Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

M/S Sai Balaji Infra Structures vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2024

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering similar provisions, in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co and Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Ors., had held that the restriction of the additional period, for which delay may be condoned, in the special statute, effectively excluded Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Learn Nature Consultants 50 ... on 16 December, 2019

Decision in the case of Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. (supra) was distinguished on the premise that decision holding Section 5 of the Limitation Act not applicable to proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is not any authority for the proposition that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would also have no application. While deciding the question of law whether the Limitation Act of 1963 is inapplicable to proceedings of Court, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the statutory scheme of the Act of 1996, was generally considered in para 38 of the aforesaid judgment and noticing that Section 37, providing for appeal, does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing appeals and further taking into consideration that if the Limitation Act is inapplicable to the Court proceedings under the Act of 1996, there will be no limitation in filing appeal under Section 37, it was observed thus:-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Jayantibhai Narsinhbhai Prajapati & vs Collector on 19 October, 2015

It   deserves   to   be   noted   that   in   the   case   on  hand, sub­section (6) of Section 20F does not  provide   for   any   period   of   limitation   and  therefore,   the   railway   authorities,   being  aggrieved   by   the   compensation   awarded   by  supplementary   award   dated   7.3.2013,   has  approached   the   arbitrator   and   therefore,   in  facts and circumstances of this case, the ratio  laid   down   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company  (supra)  will not  be  applicable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 April, 2004

15. Finally, we consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Company (supra). The question that was considered by the Supreme Court in that case was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were applicable to an application challenging an award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While considering the question, the Supreme Court was of the view that the issue would have to be resolved with respect to the language used in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Analysing the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the Court held that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply when:-
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 20 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next