Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (2.87 seconds)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, Delhi vs M/S Prakash & Co Construction Company on 22 January, 2013
cites
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001
8. The decision in Union of India Vs. Popular
Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470 did not
deal with specific issues in this case. In that
decision it was held that in respect of "sufficient
cause cases" the provisions of Section 34(3) of the
Act which are special provisions relating to
condonation of delay override the general
provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
(in short "the Limitation Act").
M/S Gautam Associates vs Food Corporation Of India on 29 July, 2009
(iv) Gautam Associates Vs. Food Corporation of India,
2010(2) R.A.J. 595, the relevant paras read as under:-
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs M/S Sunrise Enterprises, Panipat on 2 February, 2012
(ii) Union of India Vs. Sunrise Enterprises, Panipat, 187
(2012) DLT 244, the relevant para reads as under:-
Union Of India vs M/S Harbhagwan Harbhajan Lal. on 11 March, 2010
(iii) Union of India Vs. Harbhagwan Harbhajan Lal,
2010(6) R.A.J. 310, the relevant paras read as under:-
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Hongo India(P) Ltd.& Anr on 27 March, 2009
In Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs.
Hongo India (P) Ltd., 2009 (5) SCC 791 also it was held that
"it is well settled law that it is the duty of the court to respect
the legislative intent and by giving liberal interpretation,
limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act." It was further held that "the
applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, therefore
is to be judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act but by
the provisions of the Central Excise Act (with which the court
was concerned in that case) relating to filing of reference
application to the High Court." Applying the said ratio to the
present case also, it will be found that the law earlier laid down
of the court being required to be liberal in condoning the delay
in refiling is found repugnant to the legislative intent of Section
34 (3) and the limitation provided therein cannot be defeated by
condoning liberally the delays in re-filing.
Union Of India vs Ogilvy & Mather Ltd. & Anr. on 13 March, 2009
35. This court recently in Union of India Vs. Ogilvy &
Mather Ltd., MANU/DE/0311/2009: 2009(4) R.A.J. 68 has
also rejected an application for condonation of delay in re-filing
the petition under Section 34 of the Act. In that case also the
reason cited was of the illness of the advocate and which was
not believed.