Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing Chief General Manager, Telecom And Anr. vs G. Mohan Prasad And Ors. on 12 March, 1999

State Of Gujarat vs Sankalchand P. Vachheta Since Deceased ... on 10 September, 1999

It has been further observed in Para 18 that while a private person can take instant decision a "bureaucratic or democratic organ" hesitates and debates, consults and considers, speaks through paper, moves horizontally and vertically till at last it gravitates towards a conclusion - unmindful of time and impersonally. It has been mentioned in this very para 18 of this Judgment that the High Court had noticed that the Government Pleader, who was in office till December 15, 1970, had applied for certified copies on July 20, 1970, but the application was allowed to be dismissed for default.The Supreme Court ultimately declined to interfere, in a case where the delay had been condoned by the High Court. (v) In the case of Chief General Manager, Telecom v. G. Mohan Prasad, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 67, it was considered that the condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court and where certain pecuniary benefits are obtained, to which a party is not entitled under the Rules, it was found to be a fit case for condonation of delay of 195 days.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Babu Lal vs The Chairman on 30 April, 2015

Further even after the appeal preferred by the applicant, he filed the present OA after a delay of more than 2= years. The Labour Court passed its award on 17.08.2011. The applicant has not put forth any explanation that how the certified copy of the same could not be procured for almost another 1= years. Besides in the MA for condonation of delay, the applicant himself averred that copy of the order was received by him on 1.09.2011. After said date also, the applicant caused delay of 16 months in approaching the Tribunal. The MA for condonation of delay is as vague and nebulous as it could be. As has been ruled by Honble Supreme Court in Chief General Manager, Telecom Vs. G.Mohan Prasad (JT 1999) 9 SC 375), it is the discretion of Court to condone the delay or not depending upon the facts of each case. Relevant excerpt of the judgment read thus:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bajrang Lal And Anr. vs Saroj Kanwer on 2 April, 2002

8. Undoubtedly, taking unnecessary adjournments causes problems to the Court and inconvenience to the other party, but courts should adopt an attitude not to penalise the party on that count. Moreso, procedural ill can be adequately compensated in terms of costs. (Vide K. Patel Chemo Phama P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Laxmibai Ramchandra Iyer and Ors. (3) and Chief General Manager, Telecom and Anr. v. G. Mohan Prasad and Ors. (4).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1