Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996
It is undoubtedly true that in Chandra Mani's case it was expressed that the Court should be liberal and the expression "sufficient cause" should be pragmatically construed in a "justice oriented approach". However, even by most liberal construction it does not appear to be possible to say a complete good bye to the Limitation Act and to hold that whatever be the delay and howsoever unsatisfactory the explanation, the Court is bound to condone it. It is true that some time a litigant may be misled by advice. If he approaches the Court and gives full facts, the Court can condone the delay. However, the averments should be clear and categoric. These should not be vague. In the present case the appellant rested on his "own wisdom". This is his categoric case on his application Under Section 5. Later on, an attempt has been made to improve upon the matter and to say that he had waited on account of legal advice. This is clearly an attempt to improve upon the original pleadings. Which of the two is correct? Even the counsel for the appellant does not know.
Des Raj Bansal (Deceased By L.R.'S) vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 1 September, 1988
7. We had sent for this File. It has been put up by the Registry. We find that the notification as well as the award are different. The notification had been issued on July 18, 1973 and the award had been given by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad on March 26, 1984. In the present case the notification Under Section 4 was issued on July 9, 1973 and the matter was decided by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and not Faridabad on January 21, 1978. Thus, it is clear that the two cases have nothing common with each other. There was no delay in Des Raj's case which may have required condonation. The subject matter of dispute was different. Consequently, the pendency of that case can be of no assistance to the appellant.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Rattan Lal & Ors. Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 August, 1985
5. Mr. Aggarwal has placed reliance on the decision in Rattan Lal's case. Herein the plea of the appellant was that delay has occurred on account of legal advice. This plea was accepted by the Bench. Such is not the position in the present case.
The Limitation Act, 1963
1