9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pass the award after hearing the appellant and the respondent. On receipt of the award the appellants challenged the same before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ramanegaram, Bangalore Rural District by filing an application U/s.34 of the Act. That lateron, a memo was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ramanagaram requesting the Court to refer the suit filed under Sec.34 of the Act pending in A.C.No.1/1999 to the Court of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore an the ground that was the competent court to try the suit as provided U/s.2(1)(e) of the Act. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ramanagaram passed an order on the said memo directing return of the suit records f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suit as barred by time after holding that none of the provisions of the Limitation Act applies to a petition filed under the Acts 5. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and other learned counsels were considered by us in MPA No.7089/03 and in the said appeal we have held that the provisions of Sections 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are applicable to a proceeding filed under the Act. In view of the. finding given in that appeal and since the gama point covers the question of limitation involved in this appeal also, we hold that Sec.14 of the Limitation Act is applicable te the facts of. the present case and the appellants are entitled to exclude the time when the arbitration giteeceatan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagaram, made an order on the memo filed directing return of the records. That order was made on 26/2/2000 but the records were returned only on 21/8/2000. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the appellants kept. quiet even after getting an order on the or filed and they did not try to get the records to re-file it before the Bangalore Court and it was only on 21/8/2000 that they once again moved the Ramanagaram Court and took the return and on the same day thereafter filed the papers before the Bangalore court. 8. It may be true that the appellants did not take the return of the records from the Ramanagaram Court after order was passed for return but refiling of records returned by one court for presentation befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt returned the papers with the endorsement. The appellants admittedly re-filed the papers before the City Civil Court, Bangalore Rural District immediately after the endorsement made by the Ramanagaram Court. Hence we hold that the suit or petition filed U/s.34 of the Act by the appellants before the City Civil Court, Bangalore Rural District is in time and the preliminary issue framed by the lower Court is answered accordingly. We hold that the lower Court has totally erred in holding that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable and hence time taken before the other Court cannot be excluded. 11. We have considered all the material facts and circumstances of the case and also the conduct of the appellant in prosecuti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
