Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13780 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998

Laxmi Prasad vs Gulam Ali on 21 November, 2007

In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra), the Apex Court has observed that in such a situation, interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction could be shown. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned Senior Advocate for non-applicants No.1 and 4 to 9 and 11, that interference in the revision is uncalled for in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, fails.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - D Deshmukh - Full Document

Kashiben vs Narshibhai on 28 October, 2005

Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, for the proposition that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then, the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. It was submitted that in the present case, the applicants' conduct does not warrant holding them to be irresponsible litigants. What they did was not very far from what a litigant would do. It was submitted that the applicants being illiterate persons residing in a village, were not in a position to contact their advocate regularly and as such, the delay being unintentional and caused out of bona fide and genuine reasons, in the larger interest of justice, deserves to be condoned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Ulagamani vs Gnanasekar on 16 December, 2022

17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is observed:
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Jayanthi vs Kuppusamy Samuttiar on 20 December, 2022

17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the 26/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4191 of 2022 other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is observed:
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Claire Josephine Carnot (Died) vs Aramand De La Victoire (Died) on 3 February, 2020

17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the 24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.P.No.1923 of 2020 in AS.No.SR122761 of 2019 redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is observed:
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

The Food Corporation Of India vs M/S Vishnu Sugal Mills Limited on 24 October, 2019

In N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123] this Court held that the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack malafides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 56/61 consideration to the suitor. In this context it was observed:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

The Special Tahsildar vs Ellappan on 14 February, 2023

17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 32 of 45 C.M.P.No.13985 of 2022 in A.S.Sr.No.127398 of 2019 & etc., batch of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is observed:
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

N.Ramasamy vs T.K.Narayanasamy(Died) on 31 January, 2020

17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is observed:
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

K.Kumar … vs The Registrar on 16 July, 2024

17. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel relying on the decision of this court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] submitted that length of delay is no matter, acceptability of explanation is the only criterion. It was submitted that if the explanation offered does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of dilatory tactics the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. The very said decision Page 28 of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.No.8601 of 2022 in Review Application SR No.30724 of 2020 upon which reliance has been placed holds that the law of limitation fixes a life span for every legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury suffered. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of Limitation is thus founded on public policy. The decision does not lay down that a lethargic litigant can leisurely choose his own time in preferring appeal or application as the case may be. On the other hand, in the said judgment it is said that court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It is observed:
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next