Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001
12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent per contra argued that
as per the confirmation received from the Postal Department,
the speed post no. ED323792014IN was delivered to the
addressee on 14.05.2019. The Arbitrator has also confirmed that
he had dispatched the award to the parties on 13.05.2019 from
the Post Office, Delhi High Court vide postal receipts no.
ED323792028IN and ED323792014IN. Ld. Counsel stated that
this petition was originally filed on 20.12.2019. Since it was not
in accordance with law, it was redrafted and refiled on
30.01.2020 with an application for condonation of delay. Ld.
Counsel referred the case of Union of India Vs. Popular
Construction Co., 2001 (7) SCC 354 to contend that the Court
has no power to extend the limitation beyond three months plus
thirty days.
Section 31 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
Union Of India vs Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors on 16 March, 2005
11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although
the impugned award was passed on 11.05.2019 but copy of the
award was never received in the office of DG, CRPF. Although,
the proceedings were addressed in the name of DG, CRPF but
DIG (Prov.) was the person, who was taking care of the entire
arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator. He had signed all the
pleadings and in view of the judgment in the case of Union of
India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, CA No.
1784/2005, copy of the award should have been sent to the DIG
(Prov.) and the limitation would start from the date, when the
copy was served on him. Ld. Counsel stated that the copy of the
award was served at the office of DG, CRPF on 10.06.2019,
which was sent through post with a covering letter dated
03.06.2019. Ld. Counsel stated that office of DG, CRPF had
sent it to DIG (Prov.) on 10.06.2019, which was received in the
office of DIG (Prov.) on 11.06.2019. DIG (Prov.) then sought
legal opinion on 13.06.2019, which was given on 19.06.2019.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Consolidated Engg.Enterprises vs Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors on 3 April, 2008
The Supreme Court referred
Section 34 of the Act and Section 5, 14 of the Limitation Act
and the case of Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co, 7
(2001) 8 SCC 470, Consolidated Engineer Enterprises VS.
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Union of India Vs.
Trichy Engineers & Contractors, 2009 (5005) 4 SCC 239 and
held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with the
exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in a court without
jurisdiction subject to satisfaction of certain conditions.