Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
Devendra Kumar Goel S/O. Shri Suresh ... vs M/S. Pearls Infrastructure Projects ... on 14 June, 2024
cites
Section 27 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
In Sridevi Datla (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, highlighting that a strict standard of proof can sometimes fail to uphold public justice and may result in public harm. The Court emphasized that there is no universal formula to determine whether sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay, and each case must be assessed based on its individual facts and surrounding circumstances. The Court reiterated that no rigid criteria exist to evaluate whether sufficient and good grounds have been presented for condoning delay and emphasized the need for a case-specific approach in such matters.
Sridevi Datla vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2021
In Sridevi Datla (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, highlighting that a strict standard of proof can sometimes fail to uphold public justice and may result in public harm. The Court emphasized that there is no universal formula to determine whether sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay, and each case must be assessed based on its individual facts and surrounding circumstances. The Court reiterated that no rigid criteria exist to evaluate whether sufficient and good grounds have been presented for condoning delay and emphasized the need for a case-specific approach in such matters.
Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer And Anr on 22 August, 2013
In Popat Bahiru Govardhane (Supra), the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously as prescribed by statute, even if it causes hardship to a particular party. The court cannot extend the limitation period on equitable grounds. Despite any inconvenience or hardship caused, the court must enforce the statutory provision fully, adhering to the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex," meaning "the law is hard but it is the law." It is established that inconvenience is not a decisive factor in interpreting a statute, and a court cannot disregard a statutory provision to alleviate perceived distress resulting from its application.
H. Dohil Constructions Co P Ltd vs Nahar Exports Ltd &Amp Anr on 20 August, 2014
In H. Dohil Constructions Co. (P) Ltd (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on sound public policy, and therefore, applications for condonation of delay should be strictly construed in the absence of genuine reasons. The failure of the respondents to demonstrate due diligence in filing appeals and the significant delay in refiling are viewed as indicative of gross negligence and lack of bona fides, especially in the absence of a valid explanation. Allowing inordinate delays necessitates stringent scrutiny and cannot be accepted without proper reasons. The court underscored the need to balance the scales of justice for both parties, emphasizing that even in cases of refiling, a liberal approach should not disregard this principle.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal on 15 October, 2020
In Bherulal (Supra), the Supreme Court observed that the notion that merit in a case justifies disregarding a period of delay is preposterous. Regardless of a case's merit, the limitation period can bar its consideration, potentially excluding even strong cases. However, this does not negate the court's jurisdiction to condone delay in appropriate circumstances.