Back
PARTHA SARTHY
State of Bihar, through the Principle Secretary, Water Resources Department – Appellant
Versus
Kems Service Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Mr. Mohan Kumar Khandelwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarthy, J.
Re. I. A. no.2 of 2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the opposite party.
2. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay of 3 years 3 months and 25 days in filing of the instant revision application.
3. Pursuant to the opposite party having participated in the tender process on a notice inviting tender having been published, the work in question was awarded to the opposite party and an agreement bearing Agreement no.1 S.B.D. of 2011-2012 was entered into between the opposite party and the departmental authorities. Some dispute having arisen between the parties led to filing of writ applications in this Court. The matter ultimately traveled to the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal wherein in Reference Case no.26 of 2013 an award dated 25.11.2014 was passed. It is this award dated 25.11.2014 which has been challenged by the petitioners in the civil revision application filed under section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘
The court established that the delay in filing a revision application under the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, cannot exceed the statutory limits set forth in t....
The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, allowing the delay of 23 days to be condoned as sufficient cause was explained by the DDA.
The court emphasized a pragmatic approach in determining 'sufficient cause' for delays attributed to government entities, asserting equal application of limitation laws for all parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for convincing and acceptable reasons for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the length of delay is not material, but the reasons stat....
Delay beyond 120 days (90+30) in Section 34 petitions or corresponding appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration Act not condonable via Limitation Act Section 5; negligence, inaction, lack of bonafides....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
