Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Employees' State Insurance Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Mathur and Kapre Associates Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. affidavits must be truthful. (Para 1) |
| 2. caution against casual affidavits. (Para 2) |
| 3. petition barred by limitation. (Para 3) |
| 4. application under limitation act discussed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. no bona fide belief in delay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. petition dismissed due to limitation. (Para 8) |
| 7. arbitrator eligibility question left open. (Para 9) |
| 8. final order on the petition made. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--At the outset, it is pointed by Mr Batra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, that the arbitral award dated 22.04.2018 was received by the petitioner on the same date. This was affirmed on behalf of the petitioner in the proceedings filed before the District Court. A photocopy of the petition filed by the respondent on 23.02.2018 before the District Judge has been shown to this Court, wherein it has been so affirmed. However, the affidavit affirmed before this Court is in variance with the said statement. In the above captioned petition, the petitioner states that it had received the impugned award on 09.05.2018. It is thus, obvious that at least one of the statements affirmed on behalf of the petitioner (one made before the District Court an
A petition to set aside an arbitral award is barred by limitation if not filed within the prescribed period, and failure to adequately pursue legal remedies undermines the legitimacy of claimed delay....
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must be complete and timely; failure to include required documents leads to dismissal as barred by limitation.
The court permitted the condonation of delay due to previous proceedings in a wrong forum and pandemic-related delays, emphasizing liberal construction of the Limitation Act.
The judgment establishes the strict interpretation and application of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the requirement for sufficient cause and the mandat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act refers to three calendar months, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation A....
The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and dispatch in exercising the right to challenge an Arbitral Award within the prescribed time, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
Statutory limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is strict and cannot be relaxed without sufficient justification; defective petitions lead to being treated as non-est.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a special statute provides a specified period of limitation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application, and challenges against a....
The judgment established the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in justifying the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and highlighted the discretion o....
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
