https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309866 Time bona fide spent prosecuting Section 34 objections in a court lacking jurisdiction may be excluded on principles analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the party acted with due diligence and good faith; if refiling in the competent court then falls within time after exclusion, the objection petition is maintainable. By contrast, Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sets an absolute outer limit of three months plus thirty days, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend it. Delay in refiling beyond that ceiling is not condonable. en-us Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Sep 2023 17:41:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309866 Time bona fide spent prosecuting Section 34 objections in a court lacking jurisdiction may be excluded on principles analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, where the party acted with due diligence and good faith; if refiling in the competent court then falls within time after exclusion, the objection petition is maintainable. By contrast, Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sets an absolute outer limit of three months plus thirty days, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend it. Delay in refiling beyond that ceiling is not condonable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309866