Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (0.04 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005

G.Babu vs The State on 6 June, 2017

4. As held by this Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. MANU/SC/0250/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 752, the court must always take a justice-oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K K Sasidharan - Full Document

The Commissioner vs Tmt.Subbuthayammal on 15 July, 2015

4. As held by this Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors. MANU/SC/0250/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 752, the court must always take a justice- oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay. If the court is convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - K K Sasidharan - Full Document

K.M.Azmathullah Badsha vs Santhi Swarup Patnaik on 31 July, 2013

2. 2005 (3) SCC 752 (State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Others Vs.) The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction (sic discretion) vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document

S.Karthigeyan vs M.Abirami on 31 October, 2011

The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5) SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Selvam vs Sivakasi Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai ...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5) SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

S.Karthigeyan vs M.Abirami on 31 October, 2011

The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G. Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5) SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next