Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Ircon International Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Builders – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed for condonation of delay. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner claims delay due to mistaken belief and covid-19. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondent argues lack of diligence in delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 4. court observes procedural aspects and timeline. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. clarification on limitation period and condonation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court finds objections filed within limitation. (Para 15) |
| 7. application for condonation of delay is allowed. (Para 16) |
| 8. next steps ordered for further proceedings. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
I.A. 1650/2022 (u/S 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for condonation of delay of 633 days for filing the accompanying petition)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for condonation of delay in filing/refiling of the petition under Section 34 of the Act.
2. It is submitted in the application that the petitioner had preferred the petition under Section 34 of the Act see
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
