Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.48 seconds)

Assam Urban Water Supply & Sew. Board vs M/S. Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd on 19 January, 2012

26. This court in Assam Urban [Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects and Marketing Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 624; (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 831; 2012 SCC OnLine SC 68.] considered the applicability of section 4 of the Limitation Act, in a situation when the condonable period of 30 days expired on a court holiday. The brief facts are that the appellants received the arbitral Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 367 / 2025 Page 11 of 20 awards on August 26, 2003, the 3- month limitation period expired on November 26, 2003, on which date the court was open. The further condonable period of 30 days expired during court vacation between December 25, 2003 to January 1, 2004. The application under section 34 was filed on January 2, 2004, on the date of court reopening. This court upheld the dismissal of the section 34 application on the ground of delay, as the same could not be condoned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 31 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd vs Kirusa Software Private Ltd on 21 September, 2017

In Mobilox Innovations P. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software P. Ltd. [(2017) 205 Comp Cas 324 (SC); (2018) 1 SCC 353; (2018) 1 SCC (Civ) 311; 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1154.] , while interpreting section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, this court underscores the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's strict procedural discipline, i.e., only applications strictly conforming to statutory requirements can be entertained. This principle is also applicable to limitation issues under section 61(2), as it supports the idea that Tribunals must operate within the bounds of the Code, without adding equitable or discretionary powers not conferred by statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 272 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next