Del. HC: For Wrongful Confinement, It Isn’t Necessary That Victim Must be Immobilized By Tying Hands  ||  Delhi HC: For Offence of Criminal Intimidation, Intention to Cause Alarm is Necessary  ||  Delhi High Court Restrains Zydus Lifesciences Limited from Selling Biologic Similar to Nivolumab  ||  Delhi HC: Surveyors and Loss-Assessors Work Impartially and Independently  ||  Calcutta HC: Maintenance is a Tool to Maintain Lifestyle  ||  SC: No Binding Arbitration Agreement if Clause Says Arbitration "May Be Sought"  ||  SC: Need to Have Guidelines for Investigating Agencies Summoning Lawyers Over Legal Advice  ||  SC Suggests HCs to Make Rule Mandating Disclosure of Antecedents & Earlier Pleas in Bail Applica.  ||  SC: Remedy under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC Doesn’t Apply When All Defendants Jointly Appeal  ||  SC: No Restriction Imposed on Trial Court’s Power through Section 32 of NDPS Act    

Supreme Court: Must Not Rigidly Interpret Three-Month Limitation Period under A&C Act - (07 Apr 2025)

ARBITRATION

Supreme Court has observed that for challenging an arbitral award the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 must not be interpreted rigidly as exactly ninety days. Rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   THREE-MONTH LIMITATION   THREE CALENDAR MONTHS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved