Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961

Sri R Ravichandar vs Sri N Mubeen on 8 December, 2022

means that the party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. (Vide Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi AIR 1968 SC 222, Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood (1992) 1 SCC 70 and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. (2010) 5 SCC 459.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

The Malaprabha vs The Director Of Sugar And Ex-Officio on 20 June, 2024

62. Also, it must be remembered that merely because sufficient cause has been made out in the facts of a given case, there is no right in the appellant to have delay condoned. This was felicitously put in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR 762 : AIR 1962 SC 361] as follows : (SCR p. 771 : AIR p. 365, para 12) "12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P S Yerur - Full Document

The Executive Engineer Knnl vs Jeejabai And Ors on 25 July, 2024

9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5326 MSA No. 200514 of 2023 delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2314 days, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the claimants have already created a decree in their favour by lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of "sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Sarojabai And Anr on 25 July, 2024

9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2209 days, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the claimants have already created a decree in their favour by lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5372 MSA No. 200507 of 2023 Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of "sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer Knnl vs Tukaram And Anr on 25 July, 2024

9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2291 days, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the claimants have already created a decree in their favour by -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5349 MSA No. 200520 of 2023 lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of "sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Zaheeroddin And Ors on 25 July, 2024

9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2264 days, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5369 MSA No. 200492 of 2023 and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the claimants have already created a decree in their favour by lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of "sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer Knnl vs Abhimanyu And Ors on 25 July, 2024

9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2279 days, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the claimants have already created a decree in their favour by -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5344 MSA No. 200508 of 2023 lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of "sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer Knnl vs Govind And Anr on 25 July, 2024

9. The phrases "liberal approach, justice oriented approach" and cause for the advancement of "substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow the stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and reopened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, the delay is of not few days but inordinate delay of 2272 days, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prescribes certain period for filing an appeal, substantial right is already been created in favour of the decree holder/claimants herein and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed, the claimants have already created a decree in their favour by lapse of time. The Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5327 MSA No. 200517 of 2023 Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields ltd.,2 has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the Court. The Court, despite establishment of "sufficient cause" for various reasons may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bonafide of the party.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next