Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 92 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005

Uhbvnl vs Jaswant Rai Sethi on 6 June, 2011

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others case (Supra). The facts and circumstances of the instant case reflects the error committed by the District Forum in issuing direction to the opposite party to releasing electricity connection without charging the impugned amount of Rs.16,.474/-. We think it a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 51 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - 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

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

Smt.Usha Chaturvedi vs Union Of India Through on 22 February, 2011

In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."[Emphasis added]
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rangaben vs State on 6 May, 2011

In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 September, 2011

In view of the order admitting writ, there will be an interim order of stay of the judgement and decree dated 4th December, 2000 passed by the reference Court, 4th Additional Special L.A Judge at Alipur in L.A. Case No.24/89(V) and the execution proceeding being L.A. Case No.34 of 2005 till the final disposal of the writ application. since the acquisition proceeding started long back, learned trial Judge is requested to dispose of the main writ application on merit as expeditiously as possible directing the parties to file their respective affidavit-in- opposition and reply etc..
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - P K Ray - Full Document

Gurdev Singh And Others vs Baljit Kaur And Others on 25 April, 2011

In dealing with the applications for condonation of Civil Revision No.2014 of 2009 (O&M) -4- delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 200;5:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - R C Gupta - 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 10 Next