https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274247 Time spent in a prior section 34 arbitration petition filed without the notice contemplated by section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as excludable under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court accepted that, at the relevant time, there was a bona fide and reasonable doubt whether section 34(5) was mandatory or directory, and that the objection prevented the petition from being entertained until the statutory precondition was satisfied. Because the earlier filing was pursued in good faith and with due diligence, the fresh section 34 petition was not barred by limitation and the limitation objection failed. en-us Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Aug 2018 07:59:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274247 Time spent in a prior section 34 arbitration petition filed without the notice contemplated by section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as excludable under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court accepted that, at the relevant time, there was a bona fide and reasonable doubt whether section 34(5) was mandatory or directory, and that the objection prevented the petition from being entertained until the statutory precondition was satisfied. Because the earlier filing was pursued in good faith and with due diligence, the fresh section 34 petition was not barred by limitation and the limitation objection failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274247