<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (7) TMI 875 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156051</link>
    <description>For limitation under section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitral award left at a government office on a holiday is treated as received only when it reaches the officer competent to act on it on the next working day; the date of physical delivery on the holiday is not the date of receipt. &quot;Three months&quot; in section 34(3) means a calendar-month period, not 90 days, and is computed by the corresponding date in the third succeeding month. Applying that method, the section 34 application was filed within limitation, including the further condonable thirty-day period, so dismissal by the High Court was unsustainable and the matter had to be remitted for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 875 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156051</link>
      <description>For limitation under section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitral award left at a government office on a holiday is treated as received only when it reaches the officer competent to act on it on the next working day; the date of physical delivery on the holiday is not the date of receipt. &quot;Three months&quot; in section 34(3) means a calendar-month period, not 90 days, and is computed by the corresponding date in the third succeeding month. Applying that method, the section 34 application was filed within limitation, including the further condonable thirty-day period, so dismissal by the High Court was unsustainable and the matter had to be remitted for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>