citedby: 1298319 doctypes: delhidc

(xii) In Union of India Vs. Mahender Singh (supra), the delay was condoned in view of the authorities titled as G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore, State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Ors. wherein it has been held that certain amount of latitude within reasonable limits was not impermissible having regard to impersonal bureaucratic setup.

Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

''What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules.''

Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

''What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules.''

Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

''Whatconstitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules.''

Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

11. The above position was highlighted in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Ors. [(2005) 3 SCC 752 (SCC PP 757-760, paras 8 to 15]; Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma [(1996) 10 SCC 634]; and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani [(1996) 3 SCC 132). It was noted that adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fail to protract public justice, and it would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing an appeal.

Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

21 The ratio has been reiterated in State of Nagaland Vs Lipok AO , (2005) 3 SCC 752 and adopted in Motilal Banarsi Dass Publishers Pvt. Ltd Vs Standard Chartered Bank IA No. 461/06, 462/06 and 7884/06 in CS (OS) No. 1429/2005 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 08.12.06 .

Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2191 it was held as follows :

Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132] , K.V. Ayisumma [Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634] and Lipok AO [State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] were holding the field. It is not that the said decisions do not hold the field now, having been overruled by any subsequent decision.

Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132] , K.V. Ayisumma [Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634] and Lipok AO [State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] were holding the field. It is not that the said decisions do not hold the field now, having been overruled by any subsequent decision.

Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Mani, (1996) 3 SCC 132] , K.V. Ayisumma [Tehsildar (LA) v. K.V. Ayisumma, (1996) 10 SCC 634] and Lipok AO [State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 906] were holding the field. It is not that the said decisions do not hold the field now, having been overruled by any subsequent decision.

Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page