Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Prakash Atlanta Jv & Ors. vs National Highways Authority Of Indida on 5 February, 2010
11. Without adverting to law laid down in Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs.
ARBT. No.20636/16
Union of India
Vs.
M/s. Ved Prakash Mittal & Sons
Page 9 of 9
BSNL & Anr., (supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Saboo
Minerals Pvt. Ltd., suffice it to say that these judgments are of 2003
and have been delivered by Ld. Single Judge whereas the judgment of
Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India,
(supra) is of Hon'ble Division Bench and is of year 2013 and squarely
applies to the facts of the case and in view of law laid down in
Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India, 227
(2016) DLT 691 (DB), it is held that the present petition is time barred
and is accordingly dismissed.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on 18 July, 2003
11. Without adverting to law laid down in Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs.
ARBT. No.20636/16
Union of India
Vs.
M/s. Ved Prakash Mittal & Sons
Page 9 of 9
BSNL & Anr., (supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Saboo
Minerals Pvt. Ltd., suffice it to say that these judgments are of 2003
and have been delivered by Ld. Single Judge whereas the judgment of
Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India,
(supra) is of Hon'ble Division Bench and is of year 2013 and squarely
applies to the facts of the case and in view of law laid down in
Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India, 227
(2016) DLT 691 (DB), it is held that the present petition is time barred
and is accordingly dismissed.
State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs M/S. Damani Construction on 28 February, 2007
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that the present petition is time
barred and has relied on law laid down in State of Arunachal Pradesh
Vs. Damini Construction Co. (2007) 10 SCC 742 where it has been
held that: "When the award dated 12.10.2003 was passed, the only
ARBT. No.20636/16
Union of India
Vs.
M/s. Ved Prakash Mittal & Sons
Page 4 of 9
option with the appellant was either to have moved an application
under Sec.33 within three months as required under subSection 3 of
Sec.34 or within the extended period of another 30 days. But instead of
that a totally misconceived application was filed and there two the
prayer was for review and with regard to mode of payment. The
question of review was totally misconceived as there is no such
provision in the Act for review of the award by the arbitrator and the
clarifications sought for as to the mode of payment is not contemplated
under Sec.33 of the Act. Therefore in this background the application
was totally misconceived and the reply sent by the Arbitrator does not
entitle the appellant a fresh cause of action so as to file an
application under Sec.34(3) of the Act, taking it as the starting point of
limitation from the date of reply given by the Arbitrator i.e. 10.04.2004."
Prakash Atlanta (Jv) vs National Highways Authority Of India on 17 March, 2016
8. The chronology of facts of National Highways Authority of India Vs.
Prakash Atlanta, JV (supra), is given below:
Section 31 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M.P. Telelinks, Reliance Engineers ... vs Bsnl Ltd. And Anr. on 13 November, 2002
11. Without adverting to law laid down in Vindhya Telelinks Ltd. Vs.
ARBT. No.20636/16
Union of India
Vs.
M/s. Ved Prakash Mittal & Sons
Page 9 of 9
BSNL & Anr., (supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Saboo
Minerals Pvt. Ltd., suffice it to say that these judgments are of 2003
and have been delivered by Ld. Single Judge whereas the judgment of
Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India,
(supra) is of Hon'ble Division Bench and is of year 2013 and squarely
applies to the facts of the case and in view of law laid down in
Prakash Atlanta, JV Vs. National Highways Authority of India, 227
(2016) DLT 691 (DB), it is held that the present petition is time barred
and is accordingly dismissed.
1