Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Sri Nagesh Chandrashekara Rao vs The Land Tribunal By Its on 9 July, 2014 cites

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 (State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. -: 11 :- Mamata Mohanty) the consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the Doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Shankara Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd vs M. Prabhakar & Ors on 5 May, 2011

"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 court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of -: 12 :- 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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 356 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1