SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 504

RUMA PAL, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Prasad And Brothers – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appellant and Shri Hanuman Prasad who is present in person on behalf of respondent-firm.

3. In our view, on the facts and circumstances of the case it could not have been said that there was no sufficient cause for the appellant to get the delay of 2 months 22 days in filing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 condoned in the interest of justice. We also find that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly held inapplicable to the proceedings before Court regarding making the award a rule of the Court. Consequently, on these grounds, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as of the trial Court are set aside. The trial Court is directed to take up objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on record and to decide the same in accordance with law on merits within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of the order at its end. We make it clear that we make no observation on the merits of the objections under Section 30 of the Act which have to be decided by the trial Court on its own. As the delay of 2 months 22 days is condo


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top