Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)
Food Corporation Of India And Others vs Debendra Ram on 27 February, 2017 cites

State Of Orissa And Another vs Smt. Bishnupriya Routray And Another on 22 April, 2014

6. From the above pleadings of the parties, so far as codonation of delay application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, this Court finds that the reasons ascribed to condone the delay do not justify the "sufficient cause", inasmuch it clearly indicates that there was bureaucratic movement of the file. This Court considered the similar question in State of Orissa v. Bishnupriya Routray, 2014 (II) ILR-CUT-847 and, relying upon judgments of the apex Court in Collector (LA) v. Mst.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 15 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

6. From the above pleadings of the parties, so far as codonation of delay application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, this Court finds that the reasons ascribed to condone the delay do not justify the "sufficient cause", inasmuch it clearly indicates that there was bureaucratic movement of the file. This Court considered the similar question in State of Orissa v. Bishnupriya Routray, 2014 (II) ILR-CUT-847 and, relying upon judgments of the apex Court in Collector (LA) v. Mst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998

Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M. 8 Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for condonation of delay did not bear any explanation indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out indicating "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2563 - Full Document

P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997

Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M. 8 Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for condonation of delay did not bear any explanation indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out indicating "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 733 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001

Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M. 8 Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for condonation of delay did not bear any explanation indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out indicating "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 655 - Full Document

State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005

Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M. 8 Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for condonation of delay did not bear any explanation indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out indicating "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1149 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Amalendu Kumar Bera & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 March, 2013

Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M. 8 Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for condonation of delay did not bear any explanation indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out indicating "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 102 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr on 24 February, 2012

Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353; N. Balakrishnan v. M. 8 Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222; P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276; Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil, AIR 2001 SC 2582; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, AIR 2005 SC 2191; Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157; Amalendu Kumar Bera v. State of West Bengal, 2013 (4) SCC 52 and Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd., 2012 AIR SCW 1812, held that the application for condonation of delay did not bear any explanation indicating "sufficient cause" much less reasonable explanation, hence there was no scope to entertain the said prayer for condonation of delay, and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Applying the same principle to this case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out indicating "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the review application at a belated stage. Hence, the application is dismissed for want of "sufficient cause".
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1704 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961

In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 the apex Court pointed out that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definite limitations to the exercise of the power of review. The same could be exercised on the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It may also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was found, or on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal and the power of 11 review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 564 - Full Document

Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994

9. Applying the said analogy to the present context, it appears at the outset that even though the opposite parties in the writ petition-cum-review petitioners had entered appearance, did not choose to file any counter affidavit to rebut the contention raised by the writ petitioner-opposite party. Therefore, applying the doctrine of non-traverse the writ petition was allowed in favour of the worker-opposite party and against the said order the employer-review petitioners preferred writ appeal, which was dismissed summarily. On the basis of certain observation, the review petitioners preferred this review application on the plea that certain documents have been obtained subsequently. Therefore, this review application has been filed. But, the limitation, which has been discussed above, in exercise of the power of review does not contemplate so, that on discovery of certain documents subsequently a review application can be filed so as to 12 make re-hearing or a fresh decision in the case. The limitation underlying in Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC, principle of which is also applicable to review the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This principle has been laid down by the apex Court in A.T. Sharma v. A./P. Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 and Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 635 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 Next