Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors on 16 April, 1979

Gurappa S/O Sirasappa Pattar vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 April, 2018

See Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumar, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., v Nirmala Devi, Mata Din v. A. Narayanan and Collector (LA) v Katiji etc., There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred own special facts.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Smt T R Sathyavathi vs T H Ramesh on 8 December, 2021

Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe, Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath, O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh, Collector (LA) v. Katiji, Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra, G. Ramegowda, 23 Major v. Land Acquisition Officer, Scheduled Caste Co- op. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India, Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India, Ram Kishan v. U.P. SRTC and Warlu v. Gangotribai, this Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani held:
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - B Veerappa - Full Document

Siddappa S/O Basappa Korar And Ors vs Ramappa S/O Basappa Korwar And Ors on 28 September, 2022

Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd., [1962] 2 SCR 762; Shakuntala Devi Jain v.Kuntal Kumari, [1969] 1 SCR 1006; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi and ors., [1979] 3 SCR 694; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan, [1970] 2 SCR 90 and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, [1987] 2 SCC 107 etc. There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or 25 gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

G. Jayaram Reddy vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 13 April, 2005

Further, the Supreme Court in CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI AND ORS., has held that the delay caused on account of the mistake of counsel can be sufficient cause to condone the delay and the relief should not be refused on the ground that the manager of company is not an illiterate or so ignorant person who could not calculate period of limitation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - A J Gunjal - Full Document

M/S Euphoros Ltd vs Sri Gireesh U D on 20 November, 2025

 The impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court erroneous in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors reported in (1979) 4 SCC 365 wherein it was held that " "I am of the view that legal advice given by the members of the legal profession may sometimes be wrong even as pronouncement on questions of law by courts are some times wrong. An amount of latitude is expected in such cases for, to err is human and lay men, as litigants are, may legitimately lean on expert counsel in legal as in other departments, without probing the professional competence of the advice. The court must of course, see whether in such cases there is
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs R. Sethuram And Anr. on 19 April, 1996

21. Before we part with the case, i.e. would like to emphasize the need for public sector undertakings such as the appellant to be more cautious in the selection of drivers of heavy motor vehicles and see that they do not become a menace to the other users of the roads. In this regard, the attitude of the appellant in stating in their objections that the "accident would not have taken place if the petitioner has not come to India and more particularly to Bangalore" smacks of an irresponsible and callous attitude on the part of the Corporation. It was time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Narain Shanker 1980 ACJ 411 and M/s. Concord of India Insurance Company Limited v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55, that it is not open to the Road Transport Corporation performing public duty to raise false plea and indulge in wasteful litigation by fighting tooth and nail in deserving cases and that they have obligation towards social justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next