Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.66 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
9. It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ Jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new-injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Anr vs State Of Mysore And Anr on 7 November, 1966
10. It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of cases that representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty v. State of Mysore.
State Of Orissa vs Pyarimohan Samantaray And Ors. on 3 November, 1976
In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray making of repeated representations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation of the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for delay alone. (See.
State Of Orissa Etc vs Arun Kumar Patnaik & Anr. Etc on 15 April, 1976
B. V. Sivaiah & Ors vs K. Addanki Babu & Ors on 17 July, 1998
(a)(iii) Nextly, he has also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Basu , wherein the High Court's refusal to consider the belated challenges to the promotions, was upheld.
T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003
In this regard, he cites a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein below:
Coromandel Fertilizers Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 August, 1984
(b)(ii) He also cites a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. , wherein a wrong decision in favour of a particular party would not entitle any other party to claim the same benefit on the same basis. Based on these two judgments, Sri Sawkar submits that at the most the petitioner may be entitled to demand the withdrawal of benefits and consequently the recovery of amounts from the concerned official, but he cannot demand with any rate of success that based on a wrong thing committed by the first respondent, he also be given the same benefits; that really amounts to perpetuation of the mistakes.
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava vs The Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 8 November, 1995
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sudha Shrivastava(Smt) v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India , is pleased to hold that, if a sealed cover procedure is followed, if it is found on the opening of the sealed cover that he was selected for promotion and if the prosecution has ended in his acquittal, the right to get the consequential benefits would devolve even on his heirs.