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

2010 Supreme(Del) 1244

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, MUKTA GUPTA
Executive Engineer – Appellant
Versus
Shree Ram Construction Co. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Aruna Tiku & Ms. Ruby Nahar, Advs. (Irrigation & Flood Control) for the Appellant.
Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. for the Appellant No. 2.
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG with Ms. Arti Gupta & Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advs. for the Appellant No. 3.
Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Advocate for the Appellant No. 4.
Mr. S.S. Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant No. 5.
Mr. G.K. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent.
Ms. Tanya Khare, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vinod Bhagat with Mr. Amiet Andley, Advs. for the Respondent No. 3.
Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. J.K. Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent in Arun Construction Co.
Ms. Rashmi Jain & Mohd. Amanullah, Advs. for the Respondent No. 5.

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Appeal assails the Order dated 5.9.2007 wherein the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the filing of the Objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi was not carried out in good faith; and that the refiling in the Court possessing jurisdiction, that is, the High Court of Delhi was carried out after 45 days of its return disclosed lack of diligence. The learned Single Judge held that even assuming that the period of one year and seven months could be excluded for filing (refiling) while computing the period of limitation, by availing Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Objections were nevertheless time barred.

2. The facts of the case are that the subject arbitral Award was published on 10.11.2004 and was received by the Appellant on 17.11.2004. The period of three months set-down in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act commenced running from 17.11.2004 and in its ordinary course culminated on 15.2.2005. The Objections were filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi on 25.1.2005, that is, leaving unutilized/unavailed twenty two days in the permissible period. The Respondent filed an application in the Court

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