Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on 18 July, 2003

Union Of India vs M/S. Ved Prakash Mittal & Sons on 30 May, 2017

11. Without   adverting   to   law   laid   down   in  Vindhya   Telelinks   Ltd.   Vs. ARBT. No.20636/16 Union of India Vs. M/s. Ved Prakash Mittal & Sons Page 9 of 9 BSNL   &   Anr.,   (supra)   and   Union   of   India   &   Anr.   Vs.   Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,  suffice it to say that these judgments are of 2003 and have been delivered by Ld. Single Judge whereas the judgment of Prakash   Atlanta,   JV   Vs.   National   Highways   Authority   of   India, (supra) is of Hon'ble Division Bench and is of year 2013 and squarely applies   to   the   facts   of   the   case   and   in   view   of   law   laid   down   in Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India, 227 (2016) DLT 691 (DB), it is held that the present petition is time barred and is accordingly dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Technical Research ... vs Telecommunications Consultantes ... on 26 October, 2018

10...... One of the main purposes for the re- enactment of the arbitration law was to allow adjudication of disputes by arbitration expeditiously. Seen in this light, it will be found that the period of 30 days provided for preferring the application under Section 33 of the Act is not extendable inasmuch as unless the application is so preferred, there is O.M.P. (COMM) 191/2016 Page 4 no Arbitrator thereafter. We find that the same conclusion has been reached in UOI vs. Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 106 (2003) DLT 92 and in Ircon International Ltd. vs. Budhraja Mining & Constructions Ltd. MANU/DE/8647/2007 by Single Judges of this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

The Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd vs Unicon Engineers on 9 September, 2021

15. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [2003 (71) DRJ 166] has held that when the application under Sec.33 of the Act is not filed within time, the appellant cannot take advantage of Section 34(3) of the Act so as to start limitation from the date of rejection of such an application.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

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

Ld. Counsel for respondent relied upon the cases of (vi) MKU Ltd. vs Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6403; (vii) Karuppiah Mahalingam & Ors. vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2017 (5) Mh. L.J. 333; (viii) Union of India & Anr. vs Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (71) DRJ 166; (ix) Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1513; (x) Alakh Advertising & Publicity Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.Prahaladas Goyal vs Sri.Anand S/O Laxman Anegundi on 30 September, 2020

8. Though Mr. M.V.V.Ramana learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ved Prakash Mittal (supra) as also of the Delhi High Court in Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (supra), both those decisions do not speak of maintainability or non maintainability of the application under Section 33(4) and they do not depart from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Damini Constructions Co., (supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Govindaraj - Full Document

M/S Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. vs Union Of India on 12 September, 2024

"10... Seen in this light, it will be found that the period of 30 days provided for preferring the application under Section 33 of the Act is not extendable inasmuch as unless the application is so preferred, there is no Arbitrator thereafter. We find that the same conclusion has been reached in UOI Vs. Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 106 (2003) DLT 92 and in Ircon International Ltd. Vs. Budhraja Mining & Constructions Ltd. MANU/DE/8647/2007 by Single Judges of this Court."
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S M.B. Patil Constructions Ltd vs The Executive Engineer on 15 July, 2022

In the case of Union of India (Uoi) Another vs Saboo Minerals Pvt.Ltd.5, the High Court of Delhi was considering a case where the application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 was filed beyond the period of thirty days and the said application was dismissed by the learned Arbitrator on the ground of delay and a contention was urged before the High Court that the period of limitation to file application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 would start only after dismissal of the application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996. In the said case in para 4 of the judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held follows :-
Karnataka High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S V Shetty - Full Document
1