{"id":309822,"date":"2023-12-21T10:00:33","date_gmt":"2023-12-21T04:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=309822"},"modified":"2023-12-28T17:22:29","modified_gmt":"2023-12-28T11:52:29","slug":"dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju*<\/span>, JJ., opined that appellant’s petition was dismissed in default on two occasions, which showed complete lack of due diligence in its prosecution. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the pre-conditions for such application to be allowed as held by the Supreme Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt.<\/span>, (2008) 7 SCC 169<\/a> (‘Consolidated Engineering Case’) and Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu<\/span>, 1959 SCR 564<\/a> (‘Madhavrao Narayanrao Case’) did not co-exist as appellant had been completely remiss in prosecution of this case.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The present appeal was filed under Section 37<\/doclink> of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/doclink> (‘the Act’) assailing the order\/judgment dated 12-04-2019 passed by the Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned judgment, appellant’s application under Section 14<\/doclink> of Limitation Act, 1963<\/doclink> (‘Limitation Act’) to condone a delay of 6263 days in filing a petition under Section 34 of Act, was dismissed. Resultantly, the petition filed under Section 34 of Act of appellant was also dismissed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had stayed the operation of the award subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 2 Crores by appellant before this Court and the said sum was subsequently deposited by appellant with the Registry of this Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether for calculating limitation under Section 34(3) of Act, delay of 6263 days could be excluded and condoned by this Court under Section 14 of Limitation Act?”<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that Section 14 of Limitation Act was enacted by legislature to exempt a period covered by litigious activity and to protect a litigant against bar of limitation when a proceeding was dismissed on account of a technical defect instead of being decided on merits and the intent was to prevent a litigant from being saddled with an adverse decision, which was, on account of the fact that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the case.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Consolidated Engineering Case<\/span> (supra), wherein the Supreme Court while elaborating on the principles laid down in Madhavrao Narayanrao Case<\/span> (supra) had pithily put the conditions which must be satisfied for applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act, which were as follows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Both prior and subsequent proceedings were civil proceedings prosecuted by same party;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Prior proceeding had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    The failure of prior proceeding was due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Prior proceeding and subsequent proceeding must relate to same matter in issue; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Both proceedings were in a court.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court observed that in Madhavrao Narayanrao Case<\/span> (supra) while discussing the term ‘due care and attention’ in the context of Section 14 of Limitation Act, it was held that what needed to be seen was whether appellant had brought on the record any evidence to show that he was prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.<\/p>\n

    The Court opined that since both prior and subsequent proceedings were civil proceedings being prosecuted by appellant, the first pre-condition was satisfied. Further, prior and subsequent proceedings both relate to subject matter of challenge to the Award, and both were being prosecuted in a Court, hence, fourth and fifth pre-conditions also stood satisfied. The Court further opined that since the arbitration proceedings were held at New Delhi and the Contract executed between the parties had not been filed before this Court, there was not enough material available to adjudicate upon the third pre-condition.<\/p>\n

    The Court also opined that the fact that appellant’s petition was dismissed in default on two occasions was a fact which showed complete lack of due diligence in its prosecution. Further, no explanation was provided by appellant as to why the petition under Section 34 of Act was filed before a Court in Delhi which lacked jurisdiction to entertain such petition. The Court noting the sequence of events in the present case opined that there was complete absence of due diligence, and the appeal was completely devoid of any reasons as to why the petition under Section 34 of Act was pending adjudication in the Courts at Saharanpur for more than 15 years. The Court thus opined that prior proceedings were not being prosecuted diligently or in good faith, hence, the third pre-condition was not satisfied.<\/p>\n

    The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the pre-conditions for such application to be allowed as held by the Supreme Court in Consolidated Engineering Case (supra)<\/span> and Madhavrao Narayanrao Case<\/span> (supra) also did not co-exist as appellant had been completely remiss in prosecution of the present case.<\/p>\n

    [U.P Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7916<\/a>, decided on 12-12-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

    For the Appellant: Pradeep Mishra, Daleep Dhyani, Advocates<\/p>\n

    For the Respondent: Ramesh Singh, Senior Advocate; Monisha Handa, Mohit D. Ram, Advocates<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “In the context of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, what needs to be seen is whether appellant has brought on the record any evidence to show that he is prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":303940,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[10131,2543,63726,24144,11061,31835,27524],"class_list":["post-309822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-lack-of-due-diligence","tag-limitation-act","tag-prosecution","tag-section-14","tag-section-34"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC dismisses application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act on lack of due diligence in prosecution | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court dismissed application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act due to lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 was dismissed twice.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court dismissed application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act due to lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 was dismissed twice.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-12-21T04:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-12-28T11:52:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC dismisses application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act on lack of due diligence in prosecution | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-21T04:30:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-12-28T11:52:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court dismissed application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act due to lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 was dismissed twice.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC dismisses application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act on lack of due diligence in prosecution | SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court dismissed application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act due to lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 was dismissed twice.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act","og_description":"Delhi High Court dismissed application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act due to lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 was dismissed twice.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-12-21T04:30:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-12-28T11:52:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC dismisses application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act on lack of due diligence in prosecution | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-12-21T04:30:33+00:00","dateModified":"2023-12-28T11:52:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Delhi High Court dismissed application for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act due to lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 was dismissed twice.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/21\/dhc-dismisses-application-for-availing-benefit-u-s-14-limitation-act-on-lack-of-due-diligence-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u\/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice\u2019; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u\/s 14 of Limitation Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":210480,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/21\/del-hc-recalling-of-material-witness-allowed-even-where-accused-held-to-have-not-exercised-due-diligence-in-defending-themselves\/","url_meta":{"origin":309822,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Recalling of material witness allowed even where accused held to have not exercised due diligence in defending themselves","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J., while putting petitioners to terms, allowed their application filed under Section 311 CrPC to recall three prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. Earlier, the trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application for recall of prosecution witnesses. Dinesh Sah and Rajeev Rajan, Advocates appearing\u00a0for petitioners submitted that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":240225,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/05\/chh-hc-whether-in-a-criminal-proceeding-s-141-of-limitation-act-1963-would-be-applicable-court-not-to-apply-beneficent-provisions-in-a-pedantic-manner\/","url_meta":{"origin":309822,"position":1},"title":"Chh HC | Whether in a criminal proceeding, S. 14(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable? Court not to apply beneficent provisions in a pedantic manner \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"December 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the respondent 1 \/ accused was discharged on 6-6-2011 against which the petitioner filed application for grant of leave to appeal with a delay of approximately 2 years,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":216687,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/10\/all-hc-order-upheld-on-application-of-test-of-due-diligence-for-an-application-under-or-6-r-17-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":309822,"position":2},"title":"All HC | Order upheld on application of test of due diligence for an application under Or. 6 R. 17 CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the revisionist was not able to show material error or irregularity in the order passed by the courts. A revision petition was filed against the order of Additional District Judge where the amendment sought by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":229845,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/05\/19\/exclusions-from-limitation-some-oft-used-exclusions-to-save-limitation\/","url_meta":{"origin":309822,"position":3},"title":"Exclusions From Limitation: Some oft used exclusions to save limitation","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 19, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Karl Shroff*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/limitation-Act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/limitation-Act.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/limitation-Act.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/limitation-Act.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/limitation-Act.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":343673,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/15\/luxury-litigation-sbi-delhi-hc-dismisses-expungement-plea-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":309822,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Luxury litigation pursued by SBI\u2019; Delhi High Court dismisses SBI plea against adverse remarks by Magistrate citing delay and laches","author":"Arunima","date":"March 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The grievance of the petitioner Bank is that notwithstanding the favourable order dated 29-06-2022, the adverse remarks recorded in the order dated 04-06-2022 continue to cause irreparable harm to the petitioner Bank\u2019s reputation and interests.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310482,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/01\/to-constitute-valid-service-u-s-343-signed-copy-of-arbitral-award-must-be-delivered-to-each-party-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":309822,"position":5},"title":"To constitute a valid service u\/s 34(3) of A&C Act, a signed copy of Arbitral Award must be delivered to each party and not to their agent or lawyer: Delhi HC","author":"Simranjeet","date":"January 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe expression \u2018party\u2019 as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, clearly indicates a person who is a \u2018party\u2019 to an Arbitration Agreement and in no way includes the agent of the party to such Agreement.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=309822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309822\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/303940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=309822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=309822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=309822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}