Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 312 (3.19 seconds)
Documents citing Mewa Ram (Deceased) By His L.Rs. And Ors vs State Of Haryana Through The ... on 26 August, 1986

Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009

This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. 3071 to 3073, 3412 to 3414, 3432, 3733 and 3734 of 1993 titled Siria Vs. The State of Haryana; Mohan Vs. The State of Haryana; Jeet Ram Vs. The State of Haryana; Prem Singh @ Prem Chand Vs. The State of Haryana; Tejja Vs. The State of RFA No. 3071 of 1993 2 Haryana; Ranjit Singh alias Jeet (dead) through his L.Rs. Vs. The State of Haryana; Pal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana; Kehar Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and Bachan Singh alias Gurbachan Singh (dead) represented by L.Rs. Vs. The State of Haryana, respectively, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals and they arise out of the common award.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Islam And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 14 March, 2019

In Mewa Ram (deceased by LRs) & others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 45 wherein there was a delay of more than 3 years, which was not condoned and the landowners had felt satisfied with the compensation as awarded by High Court in that case. Another set of landowners had successfully approached the Apex Court and got 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 15:15:03 ::: RFA No.1014 to 1016 of 2019 (O&M) -5- enhanced compensation on the basis of which condonation of delay which was sought was declined.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Hari Singh (Deceased) And 11 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru' Collector on 9 December, 2016

In the case of Simrat Kaur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2015) 13 SCC 563 (paras-10, 11 & 12), Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its judgments in the case of Mewa Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151, State of Nagaland vs Lipokao and others, (2005) 3 SCC 752, D. Gopnathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerla, (2007) 2 SCC 322 and observed as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Shree Swami Samarth Trading Co. P. Ltd, ... vs Cit (A)-13, Mumbai on 31 May, 2017

It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L.Rs) & Ors. V. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2191; and D. Gopinathan Pillai V. State of Haryana Hon'ble Supreme Court gave guidelines on condonation of delay deciding that the courts should not adopt an injustice oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, however the court while allowing such application has to draw distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of inaction or negligence would deprive a party of the protection of section 5 of the limitation act 1963.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M.S. Modi And Sons , Jaipur vs The Assessing Authority, Delhi on 2 August, 2024

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and 17 | 2 2 condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.'' Therefore, the Bench is of the considered view that that the decision to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously and if the Courts start condoning the delay where no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount to violation of statutory principles. Thus the Bench rely upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mewa Ram (deceased by L.Rs) & Ors vs State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45,State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karal;a & Anr.AIR 2007 SC 2624. Firstly, the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal and there is apparently no due diligence on the part of the assessee in pursuing the appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naval Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 July, 2024

15. The claim as such made out in the representation that the land has become unviable or non-essential and it should be de-notified is without any basis. Even otherwise it is to be noticed that the said provision has been subject matter of consideration by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.16421 of 2021 titled as Ram Swaroop (D) through L.Rs, and another Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 15.11.2021.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagirathibai Shivgonda Patil Decd. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secre. ... on 22 December, 2023

10.wp.10028.2022.docx redetermination and not all those like the petitioners who had not only sought a reference under Section 18 but had also filed an appeal in the High Court against the award made by the Reference Court. The newly added Section 28-A, therefore, clearly does not apply to a case where the claimant has sought and secured a reference under Section 18 and has even preferred an appeal to the High Court. This view, which we take on a plain reading of Section 28-A finds support from the judgment of this Court in Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 151 : (1986) 3 SCR 660] .""
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Tanuj Jain, Jaipur vs Ito Wd-7(2),Jpr, Jaipur on 5 June, 2024

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and 17 | 2 2 condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.'' Therefore, the Bench is of the considered view that that the decision to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously and if the Courts start condoning the delay where no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount to violation of statutory principles. Thus the Bench rely upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mewa Ram (deceased by L.Rs) & Ors vs State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45,State of Nagaland vs Lipok AO & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 2191 and D. Gopinathan Pillai vs State of Karal;a & Anr.AIR 2007 SC 2624. Considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove by the Bench, 20 ITA NO. 305/JP/2024 TANUJ JAIN VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR there is no occasion for the Bench to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the Hon'ble High Court for the reasons record. Firstly, the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal and then not filing the application for seeking condonation of delay and thus there is apparently no due diligence on the part of the assessee in pursuing the appeal. Thus the Bench does not find any infirmity in the order of the ld Addl.CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Kishori W/O Jagdish Behari vs The State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 7 March, 2007

15. The order impugned dated 23.02.2004 has been passed by the Reference Court placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt Bhagti (Dead) through L. Rs. Jagdish Ram Sharma v. State of Haryana ; and Vishav Bandhu Gupta and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2002 (1) CRC 145, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a person has not filed the Reference under Section 18 of the Act he cannot maintain the application under Section 28A. The view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these two cases is apparently in contravention of the statutory provision itself and also run counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above. The said judgments do not lay down the correct legal proposition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next