Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Krishna Continental Ltd. And Sh. R.D. ... vs Sh. Balkrishan Sharma on 8 August, 2007

Smt. Dulari Devi vs . Subodh Kumar. on 23 July, 2012

Reference can be made to "Joseph John Vs. 10/13 Dulari Devi Vs. Subodh Kumar M. no.25/11 Joseph (Man/KE/0358/2001 and M/s Krishna Continental Ltd. Vs. Balkrishan Sharma FAO no.129-130/2005 & CM No.6836/2005 it is held that there should be some extenuating circumstances justifying the condonation of delay U/s 5 of Limitation Act. It is a settled law that each days delay has to be explained and in the absence thereof, the delay cannot be condoned. In the present case in hand each day delay has not been explained. No sufficient cause has been shown and when the medical certificate is doubtful & the conduct of defendant is such which is apparent on record that he wants to delay the case, I am of the considered view that application bears no merits and the same is dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Lalwani vs State Bank Of India on 6 February, 2023

129-130/2005 "M/s Krishna Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 2/8/2023 1:22:16 PM 4 Continental Ltd. and Anr. v. Shri Balkrishan Sharma " by the Delhi High Court. Appreciating the aforesaid judgments, the Non-Applicant herein had not conducted itself with clean hands before the Appellate Court and had manipulated the records of the Court. As such the Non-Applicant is not entitled to any relief, not even the final relief.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Sharma - Full Document

Sh. Megh Raj vs Smt. Lakhmiri (Deceased) on 24 May, 2008

5. Besides, it is settled law that to attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellant is under an obligation to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. It is also settled proposition of law that the appellant is required to explain each days delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the case law reported as Krishna Continental Ltd. & Ors. (M/s) Vs. Sh. Balkrishan Sharma 2007 VII AD (Delhi) 633; and Smt. Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32 Full Bench. The said case law is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had consumed any period after the impugned order was passed, in obtaining certified copy, therefore, limitation period shall be computed from the date of impugned order itself i.e. 25.05.2007. 30 days limitation period expired on 25.06.2007 and the appellant could have filed appeal latest by 01.07.2007 when the Courts reopened after summer vacation. Since the appeal was filed on 27.07.2007, there is Contd...
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Madan Singh vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 8 March, 2010

6. It is settled law that to attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant is under an obligation to show sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. It is also settled proposition of law that appellant is required to explain each day's delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the case law reported as Krishna Continental Ltd. & Ors. (M/s) Vs. Sh. Balkrishan Sharma 2007 VII AD (Delhi) 633; and Smt. Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32 Full Bench. Reference in that regard is also made to a decision by our own Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jagdish etc. Vs. Har Sarup 1978 RLR 266 wherein Their Lordships have held as under :­ "It is now well settled that each day's delay has to be explained. I find that the Contd..
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Iqbal Khan vs Smt. Jagpal Kaur on 2 April, 2009

appellant is under an obligation to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. It is also settled proposition of law that the appellant is required to explain each days delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the case law reported as Krishna Continental Ltd. & Ors. (M/s) Vs. Sh. Balkrishan Sharma 2007 VII AD (Delhi) 633; and Smt. Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32 Full Bench. Reference in that regard is also made to a decision by our own Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jagdish etc. Vs. Har Sarup 1978 RLR 266 wherein Their Lordships have held as under :-
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Haneef vs Smt. Rashidan on 13 October, 2009

6. It is settled law that to attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant is under an obligation to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. It is also settled proposition of law that the appellant is required to explain each day's delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the case law reported as Krishna Continental Ltd. & Ors. (M/s) Vs. Sh. Balkrishan Sharma 2007 VII AD (Delhi) 633; and Smt. Tara Wanti Contd..
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Narender Kumar vs Smt. Premwati on 1 September, 2008

7. It is settled law that to attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellant is under an obligation to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. It is also settled proposition of law that the appellant is required to explain each days delay. Reference in this regard may be made to the case law reported as Krishna Continental Ltd. & Ors. (M/s) Vs. Sh. Balkrishan Sharma 2007 VII AD (Delhi) 633; and Smt. Tara Wanti Vs. State of Haryana through the Collector, Kurukshetra AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32 Full Bench.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next