Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 151 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005

Anup Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 13 January, 2011

In State of Nagaland v. Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - R Bindal - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Another vs Chandra Mani Air 1996 Supreme Court on 23 January, 2012

Same view was expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, which was further followed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 3640 of 2004--State of Haryana and others v. Sham Lal, decided on 29.8.2007; Civil Revision No. 601 of 2003--State of Punjab and others v. Jagan Nath, decided on 24.9.2007 and Civil Revision No. 6239 of 2006--State of Haryana v. Shri H. S. Gulati and another, decided on 13.1.2009.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - R Bindal - Full Document

Daya Chand And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 11 January, 2012

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - R Bindal - Full Document

Ram Giri And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 8 February, 2012

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Date Of Decision : 1.10.2013 vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 October, 2012

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Paras Singh And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector And Others on 5 September, 2013

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document

Smt. Bimlesh And Others vs Central Government And Others on 5 September, 2013

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document

Date Of Decision : 11.11.2013 vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2013

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Date Of Decision : 19.11.2013 vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 November, 2013

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Raj Kumar And Others vs The Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 25 November, 2013

In State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court in condoning the delay In D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Kerala and another, (2007) 2 SCC 322, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that when mandatory provision is not complied and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground only.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next