Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.93 seconds)

H S Oberoi Buildtech Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2023

6. Alongwith the petition, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act was filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 26 days in filing the petition. As contended, after the award was passed, it was challenged before the Competent Court at Patiala House Courts. The petition was OMP (COMM.) 75/2021 Page no.7/25 M/S. H. S. OBEROI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA returned on the ground of jurisdiction and again filed before this court. I have considered the records. The impugned dated 05.03.2019 was challenged before the Competent Court at Patiala House and it was returned to the petitioner vide order dated 17.09.21. There is no dispute that the award was challenged before the Competent Court at Patiala House, New Delhi within time. The petition was filed before this court on 18.10.2021. It is contended by the petitioner that it took time in getting the certified copy after the petition was returned on the ground of jurisdiction. The certified copy of the order is stamped dated 07.10.2021. In view of the sufficient reasons explained by the petitioner, the delay in filing the petition is condoned and the application is disposed off.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - R Palli - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

8. Permissible grounds for interference with an arbitration award, in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended upto date) which can be culled out from the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court while read in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ssangyog Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. NHAI (2019) 1 SCC 131 and Associate Builders Vs. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 are:
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next