Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.53 seconds)Section 5 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003
Thus, in the light of the decision of this Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. with the provisions of Sections 173 and 149 (2) of the Act and the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and also Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court held that since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before the High Court on the available defences envisaged under the statute, writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution by an insurer challenging the award of MACT is not maintainable.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (supra) a Bench of two Judges considered the question of limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merit section The expression "sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of court section It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the massage does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. This Courtreiterated that the expression "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common-sense, pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fide section A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.
O.P. Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh (Dead) And Ors. on 23 July, 1984
In O.P. Kathpalia v. Lakhmir Singh (supra) a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned.
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
In G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (supra) it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its Counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay.