Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.38 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 42 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 21A in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001
12. One further thing remains -- and that is that the
learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the
difference between the expression used in the
Arbitration Act as construed by Popular Construction
[Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8
SCC 470] and its absence in the proviso in Section
421(3). For the reasons given above, we are of the
view that this would also make no difference in view
of the language of the proviso to Section 421(3)
which contains mandatory or peremptory negative
language and speaks of a second period not
exceeding 45 days, which would have the same
effect as the expression "but not thereafter" used in
Section 34(3) proviso of the Arbitration Act, 1996."
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Hongo India(P) Ltd.& Anr on 27 March, 2009
26. A larger Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India
Private Ltd. & Another : (2009) 5 SCC 791, held that High Court
has no power to condone delay beyond period specified in
Section 35 H of the Central Excise Act. It is held as under: -