Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Madan & Co vs Wazir Jaivir Chand on 28 November, 1988
In Ms. Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaiveer Chand AIR 1989 SC 630, it
was held that a landlord can do to comply with this provision is to post a
prepaid registered letter (acknowledgment due or otherwise) containing
tenant's correct address.
Union Of India vs Bhatia Tanning Industries on 24 November, 1984
In Union Bank of India Vs. Bhatia Tanning Industries 27 (1985)
DLT 97, it was held that the Arbitrator sending registered A.D. notice to the
respondent for appearance and to defend, the notice sent on the last known
address was returned back as addressee was not available. It was held that it
was sufficient service.
Prime Industries vs Rafeeq Ahmed on 7 April, 1997
In Prime Industries & Ors. Vs. Faeeq Ahmed 67 (1997) DLT
M/s Ishwin Packaging Vs. M/s Samman Lal Sher Singh Jain & Others (Suit no.80/09) Page No. 8 of pages 12
1212, it was held that the notice sent by registered A.D post as well as UPC,
the appellants avoided service of notice by registered post, the notice sent
under the UPC, presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of Evidence
Act. The notice sent at correct address of the firm. It was held by the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi that notice of demand properly served and it was sufficient
compliance of provisions of law.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001
6. After giving due thoughts to the submissions made before me, I have
come to the conclusion that the instant objection petition as filed by the
petitioner/objector under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act is barred
by limitation, in as much as Section 34 (3) prescribes a period of three months
for preferring the objections from the date of the receipt of the award.
M/s Ishwin Packaging Vs. M/s Samman Lal Sher Singh Jain & Others (Suit no.80/09) Page No. 6 of pages 12
Furthermore, it is provided that the Court if satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause for making the application within the said period
of three months, may entertain the said application within a further period of
30 days, but not thereafter. In the present case the Arbitral award was passed
on 20.01.2005 but despite of service and full knowledge about the arbitral
proceedings and passing of the award by the Arbitrator, the
petitioner/applicant did not prefer the present petition within the prescribed
period of limitation, rather he has preferred the instant petition only on
03.01.2008 before the court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge, that is much beyond the
prescribed period of limitation. Thus the petition is not maintainable being
barred by limitation. It has been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgment reported as 2001 (3) AIR 345 SC titled as Union of India Vs.
Popular Construction that, "the provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act
are not attracted to these proceedings and the language of Section 34 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act is specific in respect of the wording but not
thereafter. Any delay beyond the time envisaged by the statue would debar
the proceedings. The time limit prescribed under Section 34 to challenge the
award is absolute and unextendable by a court and objections filed beyond
the period envisaged in Section 34 (3) would not be in accordance with law."
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
1