Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 602 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka & Ors vs S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. ... Respondents on 2 September, 1996

Bhagwanrao Dnyanoba Thorat vs Kvs on 21 April, 2026

17. A conjoint reading of the decisions in State of Karnataka And Others Vs. S.M. Kotrayya And Others (supra) and The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Vs. S. Lalitha and Ors (supra), leaves us with no hesitation in holding that the OA of the applicant is hit by delay and laches. The explanation provided by the applicant during the course of hearing does not satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the OA. We, therefore, hold that the application is not maintainable being hit by delay and laches.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Verma (Guard) & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 10 October, 2011

6. The Tribunal considered the pleas and contentions of the parties and held that the petitioners have sought grant of temporary status and regularization on the basis of their alleged appointment as Mobile Booking Clerks in 1979 and the circular dated 24th August, 1990, however, no explanation or sufficient cause had been made out for filing the original application in 2010, almost after 30 years from the original cause of action. The Tribunal relied on State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 holding that the explanation that the original applications were filed immediately after coming to know that a similar claim had been granted by the Tribunal was not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Anshul Snacks And Beverages Pvt Ltd vs Bihar Pollution Control Board on 25 July, 2022

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S. M. Kotrayya & Ors., (Supra), we find that this Appeal challenging the show cause notice dated 07.01.2022 filed on 20.05.2022 is grossly barred by limitation being beyond 30 days and the Appellant has failed to show 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay under the proviso of Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
National Green Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chandan Chakraborty And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 February, 2002

"Respondent's Counsel invited our attention to the Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka and Others v. S.M. Kotrayya and Ors reported at 1996 SCC (L&S) 1488 where no doubt Supreme Court has observed that the applicant filed the belated application immediately after coming to know that in similar claims relief has been granted by the Tribunal and held not a proper explanation to justify condonation of delay. That was not a case where a general principle was involved. The facts show that certain teachers had availed LTC benefits without performing the journey and Government ordered that the amount should be recovered, and the order came to quashed. In that case before Supreme Court another Teacher had come to Tribunal for similar relief and, therefore, in such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the delay, the claim cannot be granted. There is no question of genera principle involved in that case."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Constable Shakeel Ahmad vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 1 August, 2022

7. It is stated that the Petitioner herein was under the impression that as the order passed by the Revisional Authority was a common order and he is not required to file an Original Application and under the same misconception, the Petitioner herein did not file any Original Application. However, later on, the Petitioner herein preferred an Original Application with a delay of 290 days and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S M Kottryya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.01.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Suresh Chandra vs State Of U.P.Through Secretary And Ors. on 7 July, 2014

In State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches, on the ground that the petitioner therein filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case, as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.
Allahabad High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Meenakshi vs Govt. Of Nctd on 2 November, 2016

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and after referring to the M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M.Kotrayya & Ors.(supra), Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & ors. (supra), Union of India & Ors. v. C.K. Dharagupta & Ors. (supra), Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuldip N Sharma vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2021

10.2 We may profitably refer to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. S. M. Kotrayya and others, [(1996) 6 SC-C 267], wherein the SLP arose from the common order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 14.08.1989 whereby the said Tribunal condoned the delay by accepting the plea of applicant therein that the OA was filed after they came to know about order passed in the case of similarly placed employees against the recovery of LTC amount in the year 1984-86. While allowing the appeal filed against the said order by the State of Karnataka the Hon'ble Apex Court had considered the scope and ambit of section 21 of the A T Act 1985 and held as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pandev Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 23 July, 2015

In State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches, on the ground that the petitioner therein filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case, as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Dhulia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next