Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Sankalchand P. Vachheta Since Deceased ... on 10 September, 1999 cites

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

v. Nirmala Devi, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A Narayanan, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1953 and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing the Appeals, as set out in these cases, were considered and it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring 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. When 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 and it must be remembered that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In para 17 of the Judgment, the observations of Lindley, M.R., in the In re National Bank of Wales Ltd., reported in LR (1899) 2 CH 629,673, have been quoted as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

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

(iii) In the case of N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the guidelines were set out for exercise of discretion in the matter of condonation of delay and it was observed that the words "sufficient cause" should be construed liberally and so far as the acceptability of explanation for the delay is concerned, length of delay is not relevant. In absence of anything showing malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, court should normally condone the delay. In this case there was a delay of 883 days. (iv) In the case of G.Ramegowda v.Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (1988)2 SCC 142, while considering the question of delay in filing the Appeal, the Supreme Court has held that when the Government files Appeals, the court should have regard to normal procedural delays in Government's actions and where delay is found to have occurred due to fraud and unusual conduct of Government Pleaders, court may condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. In para 13 of this judgment the averments made in the counter affidavit, which had been filed on behalf of the Government, has been quoted to the effect that due to the unusual conduct of the District Government Pleaders, who were in office during a particular period Government had to face the problem of delay in filing of appeals in hundreds of cases, the Government was not able to know the real state of affairs till the concerned Government Pleaders relinquished their office and in fact there was utter confusion and it became practically impossible to find out as to which are the Land Acquisition cases which have been disposed of and in which appeals were not filed though appeals ought to have been filed. The case of the Government for condonation of delay was that on account of the fraud played by the concerned Government Pleaders delay in filing the appeals had occurred and more than a crore of rupees would be lost to the Government on account of the said fraud played by the Government Pleaders. In fact, in innumerable cases the High Court has condoned the delay in filing of the appeals, taking into consideration the most unusual conduct of Government Pleaders which had landed the Government in difficulties and all the appeals, which had been entertained by the High Court after condoning the delay, had been allowed[ on consideration of their merits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2563 - Full Document

Nand Kishore vs State Of Punjab on 21 September, 1995

In para 13 it was noted that in the case of Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab, reported in JT 1995(7) SC 69 in the peculiar circumstances of that case the delay of about 31 years was condoned and in the case of N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in JT 1998 (6) SC 242, it was 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 consideration to the suitor. It is, therefore,clearly laid down that dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of limitation would not, in any way, advance the interests of justice but admittedly result in failure of justice, particularly when the impugned judgment is likely to affect several other cases. The technicalities of law cannot prevent the court from doing substantial justice. On the basis of these principles, in the facts of that case, the delay of 679 days was condoned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 95 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969

v. Nirmala Devi, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1666, Lala Mata Din v. A Narayanan, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1953 and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing the Appeals, as set out in these cases, were considered and it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring 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. When 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 and it must be remembered that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In para 17 of the Judgment, the observations of Lindley, M.R., in the In re National Bank of Wales Ltd., reported in LR (1899) 2 CH 629,673, have been quoted as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 242 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Chief General Manager, Telecom And Anr. vs G. Mohan Prasad And Ors. on 12 March, 1999

It has been further observed in Para 18 that while a private person can take instant decision a "bureaucratic or democratic organ" hesitates and debates, consults and considers, speaks through paper, moves horizontally and vertically till at last it gravitates towards a conclusion - unmindful of time and impersonally. It has been mentioned in this very para 18 of this Judgment that the High Court had noticed that the Government Pleader, who was in office till December 15, 1970, had applied for certified copies on July 20, 1970, but the application was allowed to be dismissed for default.The Supreme Court ultimately declined to interfere, in a case where the delay had been condoned by the High Court. (v) In the case of Chief General Manager, Telecom v. G. Mohan Prasad, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 67, it was considered that the condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court and where certain pecuniary benefits are obtained, to which a party is not entitled under the Rules, it was found to be a fit case for condonation of delay of 195 days.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Ors. vs Raj Bahadur Singh And Anr. on 2 January, 1996

(vi) (1998)8 SCC 685 (State of U.P. v. Raj Bahadur Singh) was a case of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, where there is no time limit for filing the petition. The Government had filed the petition after one and half years period after the Tribunal had set aside the termination of the employee and the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justifiable explanation for the delay. The Supreme Court, however, held that dismissal was not proper. It is thus clear that even for the purpose of availing the expeditious remedy, the delay of one and half years was not considered to be fatal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 53 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next