https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174768 The Supreme Court considered whether delay in re-presenting objections to an arbitral award after removal of defects should be condoned, and whether the original defective filing could be treated as valid for limitation. It held that the objections were filed within time and were returned only for curable defects: improper court fee and absence of the date of verification. The delay in re-presentation was attributable to the appellant's inability to recover papers from its former advocate, and the appellant was not negligent. The Court treated the court-fee deficiency as curable under Section 149 CPC and held that the verification omission was not material. It also held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly applied because the issue was re-presentation, not belated initial filing. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174768 The Supreme Court considered whether delay in re-presenting objections to an arbitral award after removal of defects should be condoned, and whether the original defective filing could be treated as valid for limitation. It held that the objections were filed within time and were returned only for curable defects: improper court fee and absence of the date of verification. The delay in re-presentation was attributable to the appellant's inability to recover papers from its former advocate, and the appellant was not negligent. The Court treated the court-fee deficiency as curable under Section 149 CPC and held that the verification omission was not material. It also held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly applied because the issue was re-presentation, not belated initial filing. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174768