Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 342 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Mahant Bikram Dass Chela vs Financial Commissioner, ... on 3 August, 1977

Chiranji vs Prabhu Etc on 5 March, 2010

In an appeal arising out of the Bikram Dass (supra), once RSA No.2483 of 1982 13 again Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the appeal on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and on the question of interpretation of Rule 3 of High Court Rules. In that appeal also, Hon'ble Supreme Court has not overruled the view of Full Bench of this Court by which this court has laid down that memo of appeal can be rejected even after admission.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Singh - Full Document

Gursharan Jit Singh Rosha vs Emaar Mgf Land Limited on 18 July, 2016

In  Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd, vs Dr. Nitin Madhusudan Nagarkar on 19 February, 2015

In  Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parmod Sood vs The General Manager, Bharti Axa General ... on 13 April, 2015

In  Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sukhwinder Singh on 1 September, 2015

In  Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Assistant Manager vs The Managing Director on 8 December, 2017

15. The judgment of the Full Bench, Bikram Dass Dass v. Financial Commissioner,(1) in pursuance of which the Division Bench considered the question of condonation of delay and passed the impugned order came for consideration before this Court in State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari.[(1976) 1 SCC 719] It was held in that case that every minor detail specified in rule 3 does not carry a compulsory import, that the core of the matter is not that three copies of documents mentioned in the rule must be filed but that copies of all the documents mentioned in the rule should be before the Court and that there should be no overemphasis on the filing of three copies of the documents at the time when the appeal is filed. The Court further observed that if no copy at all of any of the three items is furnished the result might be different but the failure to comply with the rule strictly is a mere irregularity which the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, can condone by granting further time for formal compliance with the rule. After thus holding that rule 3, though expressed in mandatory language, is directory in nature, the Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to extend the time and condone the delay, since that was a discretionary exercise of power by the High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kehar Singh vs Administrator, Huda & Anr. on 23 July, 2010

While the Honble Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging any appeal late, the Honble Supreme Court in the case Mahant Bikram Das Chela Vs. Financial Commissioner (supra) referred to by the State Commission has held that the right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time ought not to be taken away easily and in view of the Apex Court a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every days delay.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next