Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.50 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Article 18 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Pandit Construction Company vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 18 July, 2007
In other
words, petitioner / claimant's counsel submitted that Pandit Construction
Company case though pressed into service before AT is not being relied on
in the instant case.
Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Bindra Builders vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. on 30 July, 2012
(v) No fresh period of limitation can arise simply because letters
and reminders are written time and again, attempting to keep the
claim alive, although the claim by virtue of Article 18 of the
Limitation Act, has become clearly time-barred.“
35 However, a perusal of paragraph 13 reveals that facts of Bindra
Builders case are clearly distinguishable. That is a case where no specific
date for payment was fixed and Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 came
into play. In the instant case, though it is not the case of specific date for
payment, staggered payment in three parts has been clearly laid down and
the same has been alluded to supra. Relevant portion of this staggered
payment is contained in the purchase order and the relevant clause reads as
follows :