Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.93 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Executive Engineer(Irrigation & ... vs Shree Ram Construction Co. on 12 November, 2010
22. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The Executive
Engineers v. Shree Ram Construction & Co. (supra) which is relied upon
by the respondent also does not support the contention that this Court
would not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in re-filing beyond the
period of three months and 30 days as specified under section 34(3) of the
Act. The Court in that decision had pointed out that, in the context of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, liberality in condoning the delay in re-
filing would be contrary to the intention of the Parliament. However, this
does not imply that the Court would have no jurisdiction to condone the
delay in re-filing beyond the period as specified in section 34(3) of the Act.
This is also apparent from Para 41 of the said judgment which reads as
under:-
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 33 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondent, I am not inclined to allow the
present application which seeks condonation of delay of 166 days
in re-filing the petition. The original period of limitation within
which objections can be preferred to the award is three months.
The power of the court to condone delay is only limited to 30
days and not thereafter. The Supreme Court has held in Union of
India Vs. Popular Construction Co., AIR 2001 SC 4010, that the
power of the court to condone delay does not extend beyond the
period of 30 days. The delay in re-filing of the petition has to be
viewed in the light of the aforesaid period of limitation which is
not stretchable beyond the period of three months and thirty days.
Delhi Transco Ltd. & Anr. vs Hythro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. on 11 July, 2012
23. The abovementioned decision of The Executive Engineers v. Shree
Ram Construction (supra) has also been considered by this Court in Delhi
Transco Ltd. v. Hythro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been
explained as under:-
Indian Statistical Institute vs M/S Associated Builders And Ors on 2 December, 1977
The Supreme Court in the case of Indian
Statistical Institute v. Associated Builders: (1978) 1 SCC 483 considered
the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where the
FAO (OS) 485-86/2011 Page 12 of 19
objection to an award under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was
filed in time but there was substantial delay in re-filing the same. The High
Court in that case held that there was a delay in filing the objections for
setting aside the award and consequently, rejected the application for
condonation of delay. An appeal against the decision of the High Court
was allowed and the Supreme Court rejected the contention that there was
any delay in filing objections for setting aside the award. The relevant
extract from the decision of the Supreme Court is reproduced below:-