Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1379 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002

Hari Singh (Deceased) And 11 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru' Collector on 9 December, 2016

In the case of Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the order of the High Court and rejected the application for condonation of delay of five and a half years in filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court on the ground of illness of one of the appellant and after referring to the judgments in the case of Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti (2011) 3 SCC 545, and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) (1) SCC 535; and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195, Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 510; Rajendar Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., (1973) 2 SCC 705, Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, upheld the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the Civil Appeal observing in paras-14 & 15 as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document

Aditya Nath Pathak vs District Assistant Registrar ... on 24 April, 2002

9. This case was decided in the peculiar facts and the circumstances under Section 115 read with Order XXII, Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, Section 98 (n) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act provides that an appeal against the order of the Registrar can be filed within 30 days by the aggrieved party. Under Clause (g) (i) of Section 98, an appeal has to be preferred before the Tribunal within 30 days. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the case before us are clearly distinguishable from the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of Ram Nath Sahu v. Gobardhan Sahu (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Tiwari - Full Document

Tarachand (Deceased) And Ors. vs Kathija on 19 July, 2005

21. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has also placed reliance upon the decision Ram Nat Sao and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors., 2002 (1) CTC 769, in support of his contention that the Court cannot condone delay which would defeat the valuable right accrued to the opponent. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that though the Decree is of the year 1989, the Plaintiff is unable to enjoy the fruits of the Decree in view of the dilatory tactics adopted by the Revision Petitioners. This contention has no merits. Even in the above said decision, the Supreme Court has observed: "While considering the matter, the Courts have to strike a balance between resultant effect of the order it is going to pass upon the parties either way". In this case, it is relevant to note that the suit property bearing D.No. 974, Appavu Mudali Street is a valuable property situated in Alandur, Saidapet Taluk. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant Inderchand Bothra entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 74,000 and he received an advance of Rs. 5,000. The Defendant has taken a definite plea of forgery, denying the execution of the said agreement of sale and according to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was only a tenant under him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, there is reason to presume that the Plaintiff may try to retain the suit property. In consideration of the plea set-forth by both parties, fairness requires that opportunity is to be given to the Legal Representatives of the deceased/Defendant to set forth their defence and contest the suit. In consideration of the delay in filing the application and in the light of the contentious points urged by the Respondent, interest of justice would be met by directing the Revision Petitioners to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the Respondent Plaintiff as cost in condoning the delay.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - R Banumathi - Full Document

The Management vs M.Somasekar on 29 May, 2025

16.Finally, the question of whether the authority was justified in condoning the delay upon finding sufficient cause is not one that warrants interference by this Court. The Supreme Court, in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Others v. Gobardhan Sao & Others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195, held in paragraph 12 that the expression “sufficient cause” must be interpreted liberally, and that there can be no rigid or straitjacket formula for its application. The Court observed as follows: – “Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause"
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.M.Azmathullah Badsha vs Santhi Swarup Patnaik on 31 July, 2013

2. 2002 (3) SCC 195 (Ram Nath Sao @ Ram NathH Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others) "12. Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K R Baabu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next