Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
The Food Corporation Of India vs M/S Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd. on 24 October, 2019 cites

N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998

In N. Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123] this Court held that the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack malafides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 56/61 consideration to the suitor. In this context it was observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2563 - Full Document

Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013

In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. (supra), there was a delay of 2449 days. In this case, Esha Bhattacharjee, who was appointed as teacher, filed a writ petition seeking approval of her appointment. Notices were given but, the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 37/61 management did not turn up. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order that during the pendency of the application the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Bengali in Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (HS) at Abhoynagar in the district of Howrah shall not be disturbed until further orders. When the order was not complied with, a contempt petition was filed and the information was given to the Managing Committee of the School, but they did not pay any heed. Ultimately, in order to comply the order, directed the District Inspector of Schools to ensure the due compliance of the order and direction of the Court. That apart, a direction was issued that the concerned police authority should see to it that the Secretary and the teacher-in-charge of the concerned school implement the order in allowing the petitioner to join her duties. After the said order, she was allowed to join but, not allowed to put her signature on daily attendance register, nor allotted any work nor paid her salary. Against the said action, Esha Bhattacharjee filed a contempt petition and the Court directed for personal presence of the Secretary and teacher-in-charge of the school. In that event, the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the school preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay and eventually, the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 38/61 Division Bench condoned the delay and passed the interim order of stay, which compelled Esha Bhattacharjee to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the manner the delay was condoned and interim order was passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the previous judgments culled out the final view in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 and held that the Division Bench while dealing with the application for condonation of delay did not take certain essential fact into consideration about the legal tenability of the interim order in a matter of appointment and approval of a teacher, and wrongly condoned the delay without considering the fact that the appeal was filed after a long delay, without noticing the fact that the writ petition was pending before the Single Judge, and it does not require Solomon's wisdom to perceive that the delay was colossal. In the application for condonation of delay the appellant before the High Court had stated about the circumstances in which the order came to be passed by the learned single Judge. In paragraph no.21 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has catalogued the events in the matter of passing the order of the Single Judge and that the same was communicated. The order of the Division Bench was set aside on the ground that the Division Bench did not exercise its Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 39/61 discretion fairly and properly. It will be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment, in which the Court has outlined the guidelines while considering the condonation of delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1544 - D Misra - Full Document

Bhivchandra Shankar More vs Balu Gangaram More on 7 May, 2019

36. The judgment rendered in the case of Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More and Others (supra), cited by learned counsel for the Union of India, was a case where a partition suit was filed and preliminary decree was passed ex parte. Whereafter, an application under Order IX Rule Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 46/61 13 CPC was filed, but at the appellate stage, the same was withdrawn and later on, an appeal was filed against the ex parte decree. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal came for consideration before the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court had taken a view that period spent in pursuing the remedy by filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC will not come in the aid for condonation of delay. Ultimately, matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay and while passing the order has set out the guidelines that the word "sufficient cause" should be given liberal construction so as to advance sustainable justice when there is no inaction, no negligence nor want of bona fide could be imputable to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that if these conditions are absent, it should be kept in mind that Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. It means that that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 47/61 newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 128 - R Banumathi - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000

In the case of State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (supra), cited by learned counsel for the Food Corporation of India, the issue related to grant of seniority as it was claimed that the seniority should be counted from the date of officiating and not from the date of substantive promotion. The issue reached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but there was a huge delay and the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay having held that refusing to the condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 50/61 a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. If substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. If the delay has not occasioned on account of deliberate act or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 788 - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

"11. Power to condone the delay in approaching the court has been conferred upon the courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. This Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.[1987 (2) SCR 387] held that the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply Patna High Court L.P.A No.1058 of 2019(7) dt.24-10-2019 51/61 the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice - that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1   2 Next