Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.16 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 23 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Punjab Courts Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ma Pwa May vs S.R.M.M.A Chettyar on 25 July, 1929
8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing respondent No.1 to
3 submits that in view of the judgment passed by privy council in Ma Pawa
May and Another v. S.R.M.M.A. Chettiar Firm 1929 AIR (Privy Council)
279, it is not permissible to condone the delay.
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
7. In this case indisputably during the period from 26th of
July, 1978 to 20th December, 1982 there was subsisting
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 01:56:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040063
2024:PHHC:040063
Regular Second Appeal No. 239 of 1990 (O&M) 7
injunction preventing the arbitrators from taking any steps.
Furthermore, as noted before the award was in the custody of
the court, that is to say, 28th of January, 1978 till the return of
the award to the arbitrators on 24th of November, 1983, the
arbitrators or the parties could not have presented the award
for its registration during that time. The award as we have
noted before was made on 28th of November, 1977 and before
the expiry of the four months from 28th November, 1977, the
award was filed in the court pursuant to the order of the court.
It was argued that the order made by the court directing the
arbitrators to keep the award in the custody of the court was
wrong and without jurisdiction, but no arbitrator could be
compelled to disobey the order of the court and if in compliance
or obedience with court of doubtful jurisdiction, he could not
take back the award from the custody of the court to take any
further steps for its registration then it cannot be said that he
has failed to get the award registered as the law required. The
aforesaid two legal maxims-the law does not compel a man to
do that which he cannot possibly perform and an act of the
Court shall prejudice no man would, apply with full vigour in
the facts of this case and if that is the position then the award as
we have noted before was presented before the Sub-Registrar,
Arambagh on 25th November, 1983 the very next one day of
getting possession of the award from the court. The Sub-
Registrar pursuant to the order of the High Court on 24th of
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2024 01:56:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040063
2024:PHHC:040063
Regular Second Appeal No. 239 of 1990 (O&M) 8
June,1985 found that the award was presented within time as
the period during which the judicial proceedings were pending
that is to say, from 28th of January, 1978 to 24th of November,
1983 should be excluded in view of the principle laid down in
Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court,
therefore, in our opinion, was wrong in holding that the only
period which should be excluded was from 26th July, 1978 till
20th December, 1982. We are unable to accept this position.
26th July, 1978 was the date of the order of the learned Munsif
directing maintenance of status quo and 20th of December,
1982 was the date when the interim injunction was vacated, but
still the award was in the custody of the court and there is
ample evidence as it would appear from the narration of events
hereinbefore made that the arbitrators had tried to obtain the
custody of the award which the court declined to give to them.
Section 41 in The Punjab Courts Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
Nityananda M. Joshi & Ors vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 25 April, 1969
The principles enunciated by this Court in Nityananda M.
Joshi and Others v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and
Others [1970] 1 S.C.R. 396 would have no application to the
facts of this case."