Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Project Director Project Imp vs Moti Ram Jangid And Ors on 21 October, 2013
4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the
application. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Gauhati
High Court in Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer
Vs. M/s. Tenzing Construction 1, the decision of the Allahabad
High Court in National Authority of India through Project
Director Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors.2, the decision of the Madras
High Court in Dr. M. Kumaresan Vs. The Arbitrator / District
Collector & Ors.3 and lastly, the decision of the Delhi High
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rudraksh Laminates
Private Limited4. It is submitted that the Applicants have not
shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited on 15 February, 2021
In the case of Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited (supra),
there was a delay of 110 days which was not condoned as it was
beyond the period as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the said
Act. None of these cases can come to the aid of the Respondent.
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
7. The Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. 5, after
taking survey of several decisions holding the field has culled out
the principles which are germane, while considering the prayer
for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court has inter alia held
that in a case of delay of short duration-as in the present case-the
Court can take a liberal view and there is no presumption that the
delay is intentional. No party stands to gain, by approaching the
Court late.
The National Highways Act, 1956
Section 33 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Jubeesh V vs Panamaram Grama Panchayat on 8 September, 2021
In the case of Dr. M. Kumaresan (supra), the award passed
under the provisions of National Highway Act, was sought to be
challenged wherein there was a delay of 175 days. It was in these
circumstances, held that the delay could not be condoned beyond
outer limit of 30 days after the initial period of three months.
1