Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 184 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Khub Chand And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 August, 1966

Purshotam Lal And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 11 February, 1972

Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra) It was an appeal from the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court where the writ petition was thrown off by this Court on the question of delay. The ground that weighed with the learned Judges of the Supreme Court to upset the order of this Court was that the petitioner was not a person who raised the plea of the want of jurisdiction of the Tribunal when the decision went against him, but he was from the very beginning challenging the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and he refused to take part in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In that case the notification under Section 4 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette of February 14, 1957; and the award was given on June 27, 1960, but the contention of the petitioners was that the award was given on September 15, 1960. The petition was however filed in the High Court on October 16, 1960 The jurisdiction of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioners from the very outset In these circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that it was not a case of an inordinate delay as to preclude the appellants from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution In the present cases, the petitioners never raised any plea of want of jurisdiction before the Land Acquisition Officer. On the contrary they filed their claims for assessment of their compensation though they say that the claims were filed by them under protest. These writ petitioner have not been filed before this Court after the award had been given by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the petitioners preferred to come to Court to challenge the notification under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the notification is violative of the provisions of Chapter VII of Act, and, therefore, it is void. The notification under Section 6 was issued in the year 1966 and this flaw was apparent in the notification at the time, when it was published. The petitioners, if they felt aggrieved by the issuance of the said notification, then they should have come to this Court without any delay and should not have waited till 1970 The lapse of four years' time is not explained by the petitioners as to why they did not prefer to throw the challenge to the said notification at the appropriate time. In my opinion; the facts in the case before the Supreme Court were different from the facts and circumstances of the present cases and the decision of the Supreme Court would not govern the present matter.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Deepak Pahwa Etc vs Lt. Governer Of Delhi And Ors on 22 August, 1984

The observation that "both things have to be simultaneously done" has led some High Courts to conclude that simultaneity of publication in the gazette and public notice in the locality is a mandatory condition of s. 4 (1) and so to import an obsessive time factor. It is not so. What was apparently meant to be conveyed was that both things had to be done before the various acts set out in sub-section (2) could be undertaken. The question whether the publication in the official Gazette and the public notice in the locality had to be simultaneous or whether there could be a gap of time was not an issue at all in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 105 - O C Reddy - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ... vs Shallo Begum And 4 Others on 25 October, 2024

38. In view of above, the grounds of section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 is not provided under Section 149 (2) on which an ensurer can defend the action, therefore, this ground is not available to the appellant. Even otherwise, once an enquiry has been held by the tribunal after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant insurance company, the plea of the appellant that since provisions of Section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 have not been complied, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of compensation is misconceived and not tenable because it has no concern with the claim of the dependents and family members of the deceased. Even otherwise, the appellant has failed to prove by any evidence that the provisions of Section 134 (c) was not complied. Thus, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard in the case of Khub Chand & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (Supra) and Sanjay Ramdas Patil Vs. Sanjay & Others (Supra) are not of any assistance to the appellant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

P.N. Chockalingam Pillai vs A. Natarajan And Ors. on 13 September, 2001

In Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan , it was observed that, "the term shall in its ordinary significance is mandatory and the Court shall ordinarily give that interpretation to that term unless such an interpretation leads to some absurd or inconvenient consequence or be at variance with the intent of the legislature to be collected from other parts of the Act. The construction of the said expression depends on the provisions of a particular Act, the setting in which the expression appears, the object for which the direction is given, the consequences that would flow from the infringement of the direction and such other considerations."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

The Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A., ... vs M.J. Swamy And Ors. on 26 March, 1993

The law laid down in Khub Chand case (4 supra) was referred to with approval in Rajaram's case (5 supra). In the later three judgments dealing with amended Section 4(1), no doubt, the expression 'void' was not used. The expressions used therein were 'invalid' or 'bad in law'. But in our view, that is a matter of insignificance. The expressions 'void', 'invalid', bad in law' need not necessarily convey different meanings and we do not envisage any dichotomy between these various expressions. 'Invalidity in law' or 'bad in law' are expressions wide enough to cover an act or order void. in its nature.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 37 - Cited by 3 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next