Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.Tr.Director vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

Yugul Kishore Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2025

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1324 of 2019(12) dt.20-02-2025 13/14 Particulars The State of Chairman- Managing Srikant Singh State of Bihar UP & Ors. cum- Director, Vs. State of & Ors Vs. Vs. Prabhat Managing ECIL, Bihar & Ors Vikash kumar Director, Coal Hyderabad & (Patna HC) Kumar (SC) India LTD Ors Vs. (Patna HC) &Ors Vs. B.Karunakar Ananta Saha & Ors & Ors (SC) (SC) the disciplinary vulnerability. authority. Non-
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

M/S Gokul Krishna Construction ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 October, 2021

In the case of Shakti Tubes Limited through Director Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors (supra) has not been discussed even then the same principle has been laid down 14 that provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to the proceeding arising under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the ratio laid down in the case of Gulbarga University v. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali, (2008) 13 SCC 539 was followed.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R C Samant - Full Document

Srei Equipment Finance Ltd vs Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd on 18 April, 2023

"35. This judgment is in line with a large number of authorities which have held that Section 14 should be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice - see: Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2009) 1 SCC 786 and the judgments cited therein. Obviously, the context of Section 14 would require that the term "court" be liberally construed to include within it quasi-judicial Tribunals as well. This is for the very good reason that the principle of Section 14 is that whenever a person bonafide prosecutes with due diligence another proceeding which proves to be abortive because it is without jurisdiction, or otherwise no decision could be I.A. No. 130 of 2023 in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 37 of 2023 -26- rendered on merits, the time taken in such proceeding ought to be excluded as otherwise the person who has approached the Court in such proceeding would be penalized for no fault of his own. This judgment does not further the case of Shri Viswanathan in any way. The question that has to be answered in this case is whether suits, appeals or applications referred to by the Limitation Act are to be filed in courts. This has nothing to do with "civil proceedings" referred to in Section 14 which may be filed before other courts or authorities which ultimately do not answer the case before them on merits but throw the case out on some technical ground. Obviously the word "court"
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Union Of India Represented Through ... vs M/S Ekta Telecommunications Systems on 16 August, 2023

Judgment reported in Shakti Tubes Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others (2009) 1 SCC 786 paragraph nos. 2, 19 to 23, to submit that it has been held that the provisions of section 14 8 of the Limitation Act have been held to be applicable in a proceeding arising under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and writ remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India would fall within the purport of words employed "other cause of like nature" under section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next