Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)
Kajiva Construction Company Pvt. Ltd vs Shyamnarayan And Broters on 4 May, 2016 cites

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

The requirement of law of filing of the Arbitration Petition within three months and thirty days (extended period), in our view, just cannot be overlooked in Arbitration proceedings. The objection and/or wrong filing of Arbitration Petition on the Appellate Side of this Court is required to be considered in the interest of justice not by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act, but by considering the scope and 11/17 ::: Uploaded on - 10/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2016 00:00:21 ::: dgm 12 app-321-16-judgment..sxw purpose of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. This view is reinforced by the Apex Court in Consolidated Engineering (supra). Therefore, having once permitted the Appellant to convert the Arbitration Appeal of Appellate Side to the Original Side Arbitration Petition, the further delay, even if any, in taking steps and/or removing office objections, in no way, affects the filing of Application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act within the period prescribed. This is not the case of extension of limitation period, but this is a case where the bonafide Arbitration Appeal was filed on Appellate Side instead of Arbitration Petition on Original Side. The protection so available under Section 14 of Limitation Act, therefore, is required to be extended and/or given to the Appellant as case is made out. The issue of limitation and the issue of non-removal of office objections are distinct and separate. It cannot be said that the proceedings pursuant to order dated 7.10.2014 was disposed of and after order of conversion dated 7.10.2014, the proceedings had remained on the file of the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 274 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1   2 Next