Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Radha Gajapathi Raju vs P. Maduri Gajapathi Raju on 22 November, 2021

Delhi Development Authority vs Diwan Chand Anand . on 11 July, 2022

4.8 Now in so far as the submission on behalf of the contesting respondents, that there is a huge delay in challenging the original order dated 09.07.2007 passed in the First Appeal, it is submitted that the appellant was prosecuting the Review Application which was filed in the year 11 2008 which remained pending till 13.01.2012. That the delay in preferring the review was condoned by the High Court. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to seek exclusion of the period during the pendency of the review petition and the same has been challenged in the present proceeding. It is submitted that the submission of the respondents in this regard is liable to be rejected. This is because as observed and held by this Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Ragunathpur Nafar Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 as well as in the recent decision in the case of Radha Gajapathi Raju & Ors. vs. P. Maduri Gajapathi Raju & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.6974­6975/2021 arising out of SLP (C) No.3373­3374 of 2020 decided on 22.11.2021 pendency of the proceedings in another Court can be said to be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - M R Shah - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sharda Devi And Others on 19 November, 2024

12. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied 4 upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled Radha Gajapathi Raju and others vs. Madurin Gajapathi Raju and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6974/6975/2001 decided on 22.10.2021. In the said case, a review application filed by the appellants after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there is no satisfactory ground to condone the delay in filing the review petition. The respondents therein objected the review application on the ground that the SLP was not pending for 722 days as there were orders passed to remove objections in the SLP which the appellants failed to cure despite preemptory nature of orders passed. The said fact was stated to be correct, however the Supreme Court observed that the fact remains that the delay was condoned and the SLP stands numbered, as such, condonation of delay in filing the review application without commenting one way or the other on the issue of merits of the review, application was allowed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1