Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
The Patna High Court vs Chandan Kumar on 24 March, 2026 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

55. Thirdly, the issue of delay and laches, though noticed, has not been adequately appreciated in its proper legal perspective. The appellants had specifically contended that the writ petitioner approached the Court after a considerable lapse of time and, therefore, could not claim parity with those who had been vigilant in asserting their rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (Supra) has clearly held that though similarly situated persons are ordinarily entitled to equal treatment, this principle is subject to exceptions, particularly in cases involving delay, laches and acquiescence. Persons who wake up after long delay cannot claim the same relief as those who approached the Court in time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Harish Chandra Singh on 17 January, 1969

14. It is further argued that the reliance placed by the appellants on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Harish Chandra reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 is misplaced and distinguishable on facts. In that case, the appointments made beyond the validity of the panel were held to be illegal, whereas in the present case, the Division Bench has categorically held that the failure to operate the panel within the prescribed period was itself illegal. Thus, the subsequent appointments made pursuant to judicial directions cannot be termed as illegal, and the respondent is entitled to be considered on the same footing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 221 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. ... vs Ram Gopal on 30 January, 2020

21. Similarly, in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that a candidate who approaches the Court after expiry of the validity of a select list cannot claim appointment merely because others with lesser merit, who were vigilant and approached the Court in time, have been granted relief. The Court emphasized that delay defeats equity and that stale claims ought not to be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 79 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 12 November, 2009

33. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, the Apex Court reiterated that a person who sleeps over his rights and allows the situation to settle cannot be permitted to disturb the same at a belated stage. The Court cautioned that stale claims should not be entertained, particularly where rights of others have crystallized in the meantime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 218 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1