Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)
Vijay Kumar vs State Th.Home Deptt.And Ors. on 26 July, 2016 cites

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013

17. It be noticed that learned Division Bench in Bashir Ahmed Bhat‟s case has conspicuously upheld the legal consequence of delay and laches on the claim of a person, which is that the person guilty of such delay and laches loses his right to remedy unless he shows a satisfactory and plausible reason for such delay and laches. Decision of the Constitution Bench in Bhailal Bhai‟s case would make it clear that a duty is cast on the writ court not to entertain a writ petition if it suffers from unreasonable and unexplained delay and laches as it has been held that the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid. Observations of the learned Division Bench in Bashir Ahmed Bhat‟s case that delay and laches should be considered before admission of the writ petition cannot be said to have laid down the law that question relating to the doctrine of delay and laches cannot be raised in appeal if the same was not raised before or considered by the writ court particularly when a writ petition was admitted without notice to respondents. This aspect would be clear from a later decision of the Supreme Court dated 23.08.2013 in State of Uttaranchal and anr vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and ors., 2013 (11) SCALE 56 where the Supreme Court has further held that the representation at a later stage does not revive a dead and stale cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 387 - D Misra - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968

In Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, which is as follows: (Balwant Regular Motor Service case, AIR pp. 335-36, para 11) "11. ... „Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in, either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1