Limitation Act S. 5 – Merely because sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right if sufficient cause is not proven – Commercial Courts Act 2015

limitation – Condonation of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34(3) – Commercial Courts Act, 2015, – Merely because sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right if sufficient cause is not proven :-

“Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the limitation act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise held to be applicable to arbitration proceedings and others in which it had not so been held.”

Limitation Act, S. 5

2021 PLRonline 5102

Download / Print

Tags: Arbitration S. 34(3), Commercial Courts Act 2015, limitation act S. 5, Sufficient Cause - Limitation

Tags: Arbitration S. 34(3)Commercial Courts Act 2015 limitation act S. 5 Sufficient Cause - Limitation

Limitation Act S. 5 – Merely because sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right if sufficient cause is not proven – Commercial Courts Act 2015

IPC S. 34 – Common Intention – Can be formed even in the course of the incident – Would come into play where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established. [PLRonline 482604]

Consumer Protection Act – Stocks and shares – Invesment in – Complainant is not a Consumer – It is not the case of the Complainant that he had invested the money in share market exclusively for earning his livelihood. [2022 PLRonline 0596 (NCDRC)]

NIA S. 138 – Liability of Joint Account Holders – There is no provision for taking cognizance against a person other than the “drawer” of the cheque. [(2023-4)212 PLR 177]

Court proceedings – Videography – Whether would amount to criminal contempt of court ? [(2023-4)212 PLR 163]

Court proceedings – Videography – Court proceedings in the High Court or any other Court subordinate thereto cannot be videotaped, photographed or telecast without taking prior written permission from the High Court. [PLRonline]

NDPS S. 2 (viia) read with the notification S.O. No. 1055 (E) dated 19/10/2001 , Section 37, 52A – “commercial quantity” – Weight Adjustment due to Drying – Weight recorded during inventory before the Magistrate considered – Bail Consideration for Multiple Accused. [PLRonline 413680]

[SC] CPC O. 7 R. 11 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7 Rule 11 – Assessment of Plaints – Court should not engage in assessing the correctness or merits of the plaint’s averments – Court made an error by partially rejecting the plaint . [PLRonline 416680]

[SC] Insurance – Surveyor’s report – Not relied – Reliance by surveyor on forensic report – Claim payable.

[SC] Insurance – Surveyor’s report, though important, is not absolute and not binding on the parties – It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. [ PLRonline 368351]

IT Act S. 67(A) – Posted on Instagram 4-5 pictures of petitioner kissing the complainant on her cheek – Bail granted. [2022 PLRonline 0595]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S. 11(6) - When the parties have agreed to the have the “venue” of arbitration at Bhubaneshwar, the Madras High Court erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act.

[P&H] Bona fide requirement has been held to be a recurring cause of action and a petition which has been dismissed on same ground cannot bind the parties down for time to come , 2017 PLRonline 0107

Limitation Act S. 5 – Merely because sufficient cause has been shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right if sufficient cause is not proven – Commercial Courts Act 2015

Related Posts

Minor Minerals Concession Rules – Solvency Certificate – cancellation of Auction – By Collector – Powers of. 2023 SCeJ 0068

Partenership firm – Dissolution – Effect of dissolution is not to render the firm non-existent – It continues to exist for all purposes necessary for its winding up – One of these is of course the recovery of moneys due to it by suit or otherwise – CPC O. 30 R. 1

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Welcome Back!

Create New Account!

Retrieve your password

Save PLRonline.in APP!