Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.24 seconds)

Shashikant Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 July, 2016

On reading the whole judgment in the case of Shashikant Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (supra) it is found that the exemption from the limitation was not claimed by the party concerned under the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act and it has also been observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of decisions that the cause of action is different from the cause of arbitration.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Consolidated Engg.Enterprises vs Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors on 3 April, 2008

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 274 - J M Panchal - Full Document

M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.Tr.Director vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next