Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
KKK Regence Developers – Appellant
Versus
Government Tele Communication Employees Co-operative Society Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
P.B. Balaji, J.
The Revision Petitioner challenges the dismissal of a condone delay application in preferring an appeal against an order passed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘Act’)
2. I have heard Mr.Arjun Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Sundaranathan for Mr.Surendrakumar Panda, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Arjun Suresh would bring to my notice that in a pending suit in O.S. No.113 of 2021, an Application was filed in I.A. No.1 of 2024, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in and where by the revision petitioner, as defendant, took out an application to refer the suit to Arbitration. The Trial Court dismissed the Application by order dated 14.03.2024. After receipt of the copy of the order on 12.04.2024, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of preferring an appeal before the District Court, by mistake, filed an Appeal before this Court, along with an application to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal. Inviting my attention to the order passed by this Court on 05.03.2025, rejecting the appea
A partnership firm must have all partners join legal actions; failure to do so renders applications non-maintainable. The court emphasized the need to provide sufficient cause for any delay in filing....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply to delay in re-filing the petition and in paying the court fees, an....
The court established that mere allegations of negligence against counsel do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the applicant must dem....
The law of limitation aims to prevent outdated, fictitious, or fraudulent claims and requires parties to exercise their rights within the prescribed time. The Court emphasized the need for due dilige....
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals under the Arbitration Act must be justified by sufficient cause, with negligence being insufficient for condonation.
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.
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....
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
