Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Durga Prashad vs Chief Controller Of Imports & Exports & ... on 22 November, 1968
"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.
Moon Mills Ltd vs Industrial Court Bombay (M.R. Meher) & ... on 28 February, 1967
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (PC at p. 239) was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service. Sir Barnes had stated:
Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968
7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (PC at p. 239) was approved by this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher and Maharashtra SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service. Sir Barnes had stated:
Rabindranath Bose And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 October, 1969
8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which this aspect has been dealt with 5 in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.
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."
C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ... on 3 October, 2008
In the case of C. Jacob V. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008) 10 SCC 115 the Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of limitation the Court has to see as to when the original cause arose and in any case no fresh cause of action arise on the decision of the representation. Relevant paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 14 read as under:
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 has held as under: