Limitation Archives – National Forum for Research in Arbitration Law

Is change of counsel a sufficient cause to condone delay in filing a set-aside application? A case comment on Delhi High Court’s Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

July 24, 2020 Case Comment by Gunjan Soni , Khushbu Turki

Court: Delhi High Court | Case Number: OMP (COMM) 444/2019 | Citation: MANU/DE/1163/2020 | Judge: Jyoti Singh J | Date: 4 June 2020 Can change in counsel be a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone delay under Section 34(3) ACA? On 4 June 2020, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court answered in

The entire period from the institution of the original proceedings to the termination of the appellate proceedings, including preparation of appeal, in the wrong forum to be excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act. Preparation for re-presentation in the right forum also excluded (Delhi HC)

July 3, 2020 Update by Kriti

NHPC Limited v. BGS-SGS-SOMA JV Court: High Court of Delhi| Case Number: OMP(COMM) 23/2020 |Citation: MANU/DE/1247/2020 | Judge: Rekha Palli J; Date:17 June 2020 A. TIME LIMIT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD AND SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT What happens to the limitation period if

The argument that there was a change of counsel, and new counsel took time given the complex and technical nature of the matter is not a “sufficient cause” to entertain a set-aside application filed after three-months (Delhi High Court)

June 19, 2020 Update by Khushbu Turki

Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Limited Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: OMP (COMM) 444/2019 | Citation: Currently not available | Judge: Jyoti Singh J| Date: 4 June 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117236752/ THE MAXIMUM LIMITATION TO FILE A SET ASIDE APPLICATION IS THREE MONTHS, AND ON COURT’S DISCRETION, ANOTHER THIRTY

Considering and allowing a time-barred claim makes the award contrary to public policy of India, and irrational, and perverse, and lacking in judicial approach

April 24, 2020 Updates by Saurabh Tiwari

KM Suresh Babu v. Sundaram Finance Limited Madras High Court; single-judge bench, M Sundar J; 05 March 2020 A. THE BACKGROUND Sundaram Finance (SF) financed a truck to Suresh under a hire-purchase contract. Suresh defaulted on the repayment of instalments on 06 April 1999. SF seized the truck on 17

Categories: Fundamental policy of Indian law | Limitation | Patent Illegality | Public Policy of India | Section 34

Tags : Perversity

Shri Chand Construction and Apartments Private Ltd. and another v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.; 2020 SCC OnLine Del 472 High Court of Delhi; Single-judge bench, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J, decided on 04 March 2020 A. PREFACE: SECTION 8 ACA, HOW TO APPLY AND WHEN TO APPLY TO

Category: Limitation

Is change of counsel a sufficient cause to condone delay in filing a set-aside application? A case comment on Delhi High Court’s Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

The entire period from the institution of the original proceedings to the termination of the appellate proceedings, including preparation of appeal, in the wrong forum to be excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act. Preparation for re-presentation in the right forum also excluded (Delhi HC)

The argument that there was a change of counsel, and new counsel took time given the complex and technical nature of the matter is not a “sufficient cause” to entertain a set-aside application filed after three-months (Delhi High Court)

Considering and allowing a time-barred claim makes the award contrary to public policy of India, and irrational, and perverse, and lacking in judicial approach

Appealing against an order closing the right to file written statement does not disentitle a party to seek reference to arbitration (Delhi High Court)