Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 540 (5.14 seconds)
Documents citing Shankara Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd vs M. Prabhakar & Ors on 5 May, 2011

M. Sowmya Sowmya vs The State Of Telangana on 29 February, 2024

17. Further, in view of the findings recorded by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2012 of 2003 holding that the predecessors of the petitioner in W.P.No.28677/2023 are in lawful possession of the property and the said findings having been reaffirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.393 of 2022 and as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 12 of the decision in Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs M. Prabhakar and others (supra) and taking note of the chequered history of the disputed lands, this Court, deems it appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the existing ::25::
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 29 February, 2024

17. Further, in view of the findings recorded by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2012 of 2003 holding that the predecessors of the petitioner in W.P.No.28677/2023 are in lawful possession of the property and the said findings having been reaffirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.393 of 2022 and as per the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 12 of the decision in Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs M. Prabhakar and others (supra) and taking note of the chequered history of the disputed lands, this Court, deems it appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the existing ::25::
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.Lakshmi Mohan vs M/S.Airtech Projects Engineers Pvt. ... on 22 March, 2013

In this connection, he referred to the decisions reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607 (Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Vs. M.Prabhakar) at paragraphs 88 and 89, 2009-3-L.W. 792 (Nazima Continental & others Vs. The Indian Overseas Bank, Triplicane Branch and others), (2003) 1 SCC 472 (Ram Nibas Gagar Vs. Debojyoti Das) and (2008) 17 SCC 491 (Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal). None of these judgments are of any assistance to the Bank in this case, considering the violation of the mandatory condition in the auction notice on the payment of 10% EMD, conferring eligibility on an applicant to participate in the auction. On the admitted facts and the status of the claim on 10% EMD, the non-compliance being fundamental, it strikes at the root of the valid sale to confer any protection to the Bank.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt M Nagarathnamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2020

10. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the conduct of the petitioner in respect of suppression of judicial pronouncement which is against him in W.P. No.6723/2012 and in not disclosing the dismissal of RFA No.284/2002 which is a 10 serious issue and the same cannot be condoned in permitting the petitioner to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition. Even assuming such liberty is granted still res judicata principle would operate in respect of challenge to preliminary notification dated 28.11.2991 at Annexure-B. Petitioner is not entitled to seek permission to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file fresh writ petition. Successive writ petitions are barred as held in the case of Shankar Co-Operative, Housing Society Ltd., Vs. M. Prabhakar reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Sri V Sreenivasaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2020

(d). The Apex Court in 2011 AIR SCW 3033 (Shankar Co-op Housing Society Ltd., v. M.Prabhakar & Others), held that a second writ petition on the same cause of action cannot be filed and an issue which had attained finality cannot be entertained. In the said case, the Apex Court held that the High Courts ought not to entertain and grant relief to a writ petitioner, when there is inordinate delay and unexplained delay in approaching the Court and that subsequent writ petition is not maintainable in respect of an issue concluded between the parties in the earlier writ petitions.
Karnataka High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri B L Ramakrishna on 23 September, 2022

127. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants also relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. M.Prabhakar and others reported in (2011)5 SCC 607 regarding delay in filing writ petitions. It is true that delay and laches is one of the factors that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers, if there is such negligence or 150 omission on the part of the applicant to assert his rights taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances. In the present intra Court Appeals, the State Government introduced the scheme and based on the said scheme, BDA passed the resolutions for allotment of sites, as the applicants belong to backward community or scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes and were unable to pay the sital value within the time prescribed. When some of the applicants approached the Court and succeeded, there was some delay for the present petitioners in approaching the Court. As delay is not fatal to the case, in order to do complete justice and in the interest of both the parties, the High Courts can exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay. It is relevant to state at this stage that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Thereby, only on the 151 ground of delay, writ petitions cannot be dismissed as there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, as the Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. Thereby, the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present intra Court Appeals.
Karnataka High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 1 - B Veerappa - Full Document

M K Thyagaraja Gupta vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2012

"53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the -: 39 :- Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay."
Karnataka High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

S.Valluvan vs Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation on 12 April, 2013

14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. (Vide Durga prashad V. Rohtas Light Railway C. Ltd., V. District Board, Bhojpur, Dayal Singh V. Unio of India and Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. V. M.Prabhakar.)
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Swarnam J.Natarajan vs The High Court Of Judicature At Madras on 28 November, 2014

14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. (Vide Durga prashad V. Rohtas Light Railway C. Ltd., V. District Board, Bhojpur, Dayal Singh V. Unio of India and Shankara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. V. M.Prabhakar.)
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next