9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdwaj, Adv. Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandiok, Adv. Ms. Manmeet Arora, Adv. Mr. Chand Chopra, Adv. Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh, Adv. JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. The Appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Delhi High Court dated 1.9.2015 in F.A.O.(OS) No. 436 of 2015 refusing to condone a period of 65 days in re-filing the objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn Railway, that took time in arranging even the small things. Mr. Amarjeet Singh Chandiok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that Section 34(3) of the Act bars re-filing beyond the period stipulated therein. The said sub-section reads as follows: 34. (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t shall be considered as fresh institution. If this Rule is strictly applied in this case, it would mean that any re-filing beyond 7 days would be a fresh institution. However, it is a matter of record that 5 extensions were given beyond 7 days. Undoubtedly, at the end of the extensions, it would amount to re-filing. 3. We are not inclined to accept this contention particularly since the Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
