Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 107 (3.25 seconds)
Documents citing Om Prakash vs Ashwani Kumar Bassi on 27 August, 2010

Hashmukhbhai vs Chief on 22 September, 2010

15. Learned AGP Mr.Patel also relied upon one recent decision in a similar circumstances where contest the application is available to opposite party must have to be filed within specific time as prescribed in statute, beyond that, Authority has no power or jurisdiction to condone even 1(One) day delay and in such circumstances, provision of Limitation Act is not applicable and question of condoning delay does not arise. For that, he relied upon judgment of Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi being unreported judgment in Special Civil Leave Petition (Civil) No.24430 of 2008 decided on 27.08.2010 delivered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Patnaik Relevant discussion made by Hon'ble Apex Court after considering fact and submissions made by respective advocates are in Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, which are quoted as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Director Directorate Of Education & Anr vs Mohd. Shamim & Ors on 29 November, 2019

in Ravi Nath Sharma Vs. Jagdish Prasad Sharma & Ors. MANU/DE/7916/2017, holding that Ganpat Ram Sharma supra is the sole judgment holding the Limitation Act to apply to Rent Controller; else the consistent view of the Supreme Court has been that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the Rent RC.REV. 279/2014 Page 13 of 29 Controller; (xxiv) reference is also made to Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) (1999) 6 SCC 222 holding that though the word revision is not employed in proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act, from the language used therein it is evident that the power conferred is revisional power and which is different from the appellate power; that Section 25B is a self-contained provision; (xxv) reliance is placed on Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Ltd. 2009 (5) SCC 791 holding that in the absence of any provision in Section 35 (H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for condonation of delay in filing the reference application, the High Court did not have any inherent or plenary power to condone the delay; (xxvi) reference is made to Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi 2010 (9) SCC 183 holding that the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 being a creature of a statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in it by a statute and cannot entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in applying for leave to contest; (xxvii) reference is made to South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union Vs. B. Yashodabai 2015 (2) SCC 727 to contend that once the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh supra has pronounced on the issue the matter does not require reconsideration by any other Court; reference in this regard is also made to Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan 2002 (2) SCC 420 holding that it is impermissible for the High Court to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that the Supreme Court did not consider the point canvassed before the High Court; reference in this context is also made to Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2012 SCC RC.REV. 279/2014 Page 14 of 29 OnLine Del 2684 (DB) and Indian Airlines Vs. Union of India 2006 (128) DLT 505 (DB) to the same effect; and, (xxviii) reliance is placed on Sanjay Mehra Vs. Sunil Malhotra 2010 (170) DLT 797 holding that the Rent Controller is required to confine the examination to the application for leave to defend and relying thereon it is contended that in the absence of leave to defend, nothing is to be considered by the Controller.
Delhi High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 14 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Acj-Cum-Ccj-Cum-Arc vs Sh. Chhangaram on 14 January, 2022

13. The same views were also expressed by this Court in Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi [(2010) 9 SCC 183], wherein it was held that in the absence of a specific power being vested in the Rent Controller, it being a creature of statute, it could only act in terms of the powers vested in it by the Statute and could not, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, since the Statute did not vest him with such power.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aniyan Yohannan vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2022

The said judgment was rendered by this Court taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court under similar circumstances in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. [(2010) 5 SCC 23], wherein the Apex Court considered the special limitation prescribed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the judgment in Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi [(2010) 9 SCC 162], wherein the Apex Court considered the special limitation prescribed under Section 13(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. [(2013) 10 SCC 765], wherein the W.P.(C) No. 5735/2013 : 16 : Apex Court emphasizes the need for strict compliance with the statutory scheme, and held that it is not permissible to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, if statute does not permit the same.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Paramvir Kaur vs Balbir Kaur And Others on 19 December, 2022

3. In view of the rival contentions raised before this court and after going through the established legal proposition this court is of the considered opinion in the instant case respondent Paramvir Kaur was served with the notice of ejectment petition in the prescribed format as per the requirement of Section 38 (4) and in accordance with proforma attached in schedule (3) to the Punjab Rent Act, 1995. As per the report on the notice the respondent received the same on 12.10.2019 in person. Thereafter the period of 15 days elapsed and respondent did not appear before this court within fifteen days as per the requirement of Section 38 (7) (b) and did not apply for leave to contest within the period of limitation provided under the aforesaid Section. She appeared on 01.11.2019 and filed the instant application which is clearly time barred. The grounds which have been mentioned by her while seeking the condonation of delay do not appeal to the conscience of this court and are rendered frivolous. Most importantly no such delay can be condoned within the establish principles of law. As per the law laid down by Apex Court in Om Parkash vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H S Madaan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next