Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Section 9 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
M/S. Shakti Tubes Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 July, 2009
36. The earlier proceeding before the NCLT and the
present proceedings also relate to the amount to be paid by the
defendant in respect of Project No. 0095. It has been categorically
CS (Comm) No. 310/2022
Rajiv Tiwari vs M/s Umang Town Planner (P) Ltd. 16 of 20
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisions of
Section 14 has to be widely interpreted and Hon'ble Supreme
Court has granted the benefit of Section 14 to the parties when the
proceedings before the courts were different as in the aforesaid
judgment of Shakti Tubes (supra), the plaintiff was pursuing the
remedy under Writ jurisdiction which failed and subsequently filed
suit for recovery.
Union Of India And Ors vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr on 5 February, 2004
32. Further in the judgment Union of India & Ors. Vs
West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr., Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that Section 14 is wide in application and is not confined to case
of defect of jurisdiction but is also applicable where proceedings
have failed on account of cause of like nature.
P. Sarathy vs State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2000
In the judgment P. Sarathi vs State Bank of India,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that authority of tribunal having
trappings of a court would be a court within the meaning of
Section 14 of The Limitation Act.
Gri Towers India Private Limited vs Inox Wind Limited on 20 October, 2023
37. The case titled GRI Tower India Ltd. vs Inox Wind
Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (insolvency) No. 1106/2023 by
NCLAT does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. In the said case, benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act
was not granted to petitioner as he withdrew the recovery suit
filed by him and no liberty was granted to him to institute fresh
suit, while in the matter in hand, the NCLT has granted liberty to
the plaintiff to work out its remedy against defendant in
accordance with law.
M/S. Msp Steel & Power Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 May, 2014
Similar view was taken by
Hon'ble Supreme court in MP Steel Operations vs Commissioner
of Central Excise.
Sesh Nath Singh & Anr vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-Operative ... on 22 November, 2019
As per plaintiff, the cause of action arose during the
period February 2017 to April 2017 when the work force was
provided by the plaintiff to defendant in respect of project CC-095
at Dhaula Kuan. The plaintiff had approached the NCLT on
20.12.19 when it had filed application under Section 9 of IBC and
the Ld. NCLT had disposed of the matter vide order dated
28.07.2022 thereby granting liberty to the plaintiff to work out its
CS (Comm) No. 310/2022
Rajiv Tiwari vs M/s Umang Town Planner (P) Ltd. 12 of 20
remedy against defendant in accordance with law. Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff submitted that this period from 20.12.19 to
28.07.2022 is liable to be excluded while computing the period of
limitation in terms of Section 14 of Limitation Act. Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff relied upon the judgments in Sesh Nath Singh & Anr.
Vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.,
Civil Appeal No. 9198 of 2019; Shakti Tubes Vs State of Bihar
2009 (75) AIC95; Rameshwarlal vs Municipal Council, Tonk
and Ors. 1997(1) SCT485(SC); Roshanlal Kuthalia and Ors. Vs
RB Mohan Singh Oberoi AIR 1975SC824; Union of India and
Ors. Vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr.(III) (2004) 3 SCC
458; P. Sarathy vs State Bank of India 2000 AIR(SC) 2023; MP
Steel Corporation vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 7
SCC 58; National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ram
Avtar Gupta MANU/DE/5728/2023.