9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
In the case cited as 2004 (4) TMI 669 - DELHI HIGH COURT, presided over by Justice Vikramajit Sen, the court addressed a Revision filed against the dismissal of Appeals by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, concerning Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The Revision was filed following the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court on 13.8.1999. However, the Revision was not filed until 13.9.1999, and it lacked an accompanying application for the condonation of delay. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was later filed on 12.11.1999.
The court emphasized that an application for condonation of delay must accompany the Revision. The Revision was effectively considered filed on 12th November 1999, not 13th September 1999. While the court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of a bona fide error due to incorrect legal advice, it noted that the petitioner, being a commercial entity, could not be granted the leniency typically afforded to uneducated individuals. The court cited the Supreme Court's observations in Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, highlighting that excessive leniency would undermine the Limitation Act. The court found no grounds to condone the delay and dismissed the Revision.
|
