Swastik Wires , 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies upon
Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v.
Irrigation Deptt. , (2008) 7 SCC 169] and thereby states that ... judgment of the High Court is wholly
incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg.
Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. , (2008) 7 SCC 169] was a
judgment
Swastik Wires , 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies upon
Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v.
Irrigation Deptt. , (2008) 7 SCC 169] and thereby states that ... judgment of the High Court is wholly
incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg.
Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. , (2008) 7 SCC 169] was a
judgment
Court, it does not square also with the subsequent judgment
in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt.A
three-Judge Bench of this Court ... Arbitration
Act and the Limitation Act, this Court held: ( Consolidated
Engg. Enterprises case, SCC pp. 181-82, para 23)
23. "At this stage
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.3 , Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others4, P. Radha ... Limitation Act."
22. So far as the decision in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt . (supra) is concerned, it brings out the distinction that
Appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department & Ors.2 , to submit that ... Signing Date:13.12.2023
18:14:49
11.1 The Supreme Court in Consolidated Engineering case while
elaborating on the principles laid down in Madhavrao Narayanrao
exceeding its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in
the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. the
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others ,
reported ... have amounted to exceeding its
jurisdiction. Further, the Supreme Court, in Consolidated
Engineering Enterprises (supra), in paragraph 22, held that the
policy of Section
then relies upon the judgment reported in 2008 (7) SCC
169 [Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal
Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors. ] to support its contention ... facts of the
instant case. Relying upon Consolidated Engineering (supra) and
M.P. Steel (supra) the appellant says that the parameters to be
considered
Swastik Wires , 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies
upon Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v.
Irrigation Deptt. , (2008) 7 SCC 169] and thereby states that ... judgment of the High
Court is wholly incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg.
[Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. , (2008)
7 SCC 169] was a judgment
2017 Page 8 of 15
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary,
Irrigation Department and Ors. , it is submitted by Mr. Ratan K.
Singh, ld. counsel ... noted only for the
sake of rejection. In Consolidated Engineering Enterprises, the
Supreme Court has expressly ruled that even if sufficient cause is
shown
sought to place reliance on the judgment
of this Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v.
Principle Secy, Irrigation Department5 (3- Judge Bench ... Section 14 ,
were extensively discussed and summarised by this
Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises (Supra),
wherein while holding the exclusion of time period
under Section
