Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Shri. Ravindra Laxman Borole vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 April, 2025 cites

Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors vs Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors on 13 July, 1989

7. Relying upon the principle of judicial discipline and the constitutional convention laid down by the Supreme Court in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, (1989) 3 SCC 396, 6 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:29:06 ::: wp2103-2021 & wp2105-2021-F.doc learned counsel submitted that if a coordinate Bench finds itself unable to agree with an earlier view, it must refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than take a divergent view. In paragraphs 18 to 20 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that consistency, certainty, and judicial propriety demand adherence to the precedents laid down by coordinate Benches unless overruled by a larger Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 469 - K J Shetty - Full Document

(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002

18. The underlying rationale in the above cases was that a decision to condone a long delay affects valuable rights of the opposing party (by resurrecting a stale claim), and hence fairness demanded a corrective oversight at the earliest stage. The Courts in Balwant Thale and Kanchanbai Sukalkar recognized a 11 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:29:07 ::: wp2103-2021 & wp2105-2021-F.doc distinction between the merits of the appeal and the threshold question of delay. They opined that while Section 252 bars an "appeal" in a technical sense, the Code did not intend to leave a party remediless against an unjustified condonation of delay. Therefore, those Benches permitted the challenge through the revisional route to the immediate superior, effectively construing Section 257 as allowing an Additional Collector or Commissioner to step in. In doing so, however, the earlier judgments did not explicitly address the restraining effect of Section 259's finality clause on the locus of revisional powers. Notably, Balwant Thale (supra) held that "the Additional Collector is the revisionary authority over the order passed by the SDO", thus implying that Section 259 was not seen as confining the power to the State Government in that context.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1259 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Smt. Kalpana Anantkumar Barade And ... vs Shri. Hemant Sadaram Raut And Others on 16 September, 2019

Kalpana V. Raut & Ors. (W.P. No. 5716 of 2024, decided 21 February 2025). In that judgment, the learned Judge acknowledged the "series of judgments" by coordinate Benches and the confusion caused thereby. Upon an exhaustive analysis, the Court in Pravin Gajanan 15 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:29:07 ::: wp2103-2021 & wp2105-2021-F.doc Thakur affirmed the reasoning of Sadanand Suroshe as the correct interpretation of the statutory scheme. The learned judge agreed that Section 252, read with Section 259, bars any second appeal to the departmental appellate authority if the first appellate authority has admitted the appeal after condoning delay. The judgment notes that Sadanand Suroshe "correctly interpreted" Sections 251 and 252 after noticing Section 255, holding that even when an appeal is admitted upon condonation, further appeal is barred. It further observes that the prior coordinate decisions in Ahmad Ambir Shaikh and Balwant Thale had overlooked Section 259, and were thus not binding. In fact, Pravin Thakur goes so far as to hold those earlier contrary decisions to be made per incuriam or distinguishable. The Court emphasizes that learned judge in Sadanand Suroshe had "obliterated the fine distinction" that Balwant Thale and Kanchanbai tried to draw between 'admission' and 'condonation', thereby aligning the practice with the letter of the law.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe vs Ashok Gajanan Suroshe And Ors on 18 October, 2023

19. A divergent view was forcefully expressed by a later Single Judge in Sadanand Tukaram Suroshe v. Ashok Gajanan Suroshe & Ors. (W.P. No. 12965 of 2023, decided 28 March 2024). In that case, Co-ordinate Bench examined the scheme of Sections 251, 252, 255 and 259 closely and held that the MLRC does not permit any appeal to the Additional Collector against an order of the SDO admitting an appeal after condoning delay. The Court concluded that by virtue of Section 252, "the order of SDO admitting the appeal after condoning the delay is not appealable", and "the only remedy available to the petitioner is the remedy of revision. Further, addressing the proper forum for such revision, the judgment held that "by virtue of Section 259 of the MLRC, the 12 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:29:07 ::: wp2103-2021 & wp2105-2021-F.doc order admitting the appeal being final as no appeal lies from such decision, the revision would lie before the State Government." In other words, Sadanand Suroshe decided that an aggrieved party must approach the State Government in revision and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the immediate appellate/revisional officer (such as an Additional Collector). This marked a clear departure from the Balwant Thale line of cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - M J Jamdar - Full Document

Shri. Ashokrao Ganpati Ghatge And Ors vs Shri. Madhavrao Ramchandra Ghatge And ... on 4 January, 2023

In Ashokrao Ganpati Ghatge & Ors. v. Madhavrao R. Ghatge & Ors. (W.P. No. 5561 of 2022, decided 27 September 2024), a learned Single Judge disagreed with the constraints adopted in Sadanand. In Ashokrao Ghatge, the Court held that nothing in the MLRC imposed an "embargo" on filing an appeal against an order condoning delay. The judgment explicitly noted that it had considered the ratio of Sadanand Suroshe, yet it arrived at the opposite conclusion that an appeal (or at least a challenge) to the immediate superior was maintainable despite Section 252. Effectively, Ashokrao Ghatge realigned with the earlier Balwant/Kanchanbai view, allowing an aggrieved party to contest the SDO's delay-condonation order before the Additional Collector. It appears that Ashokrao Ghatge interpreted the scheme to mean that Section 252 bars a formal "appeal" in name, but does not bar the higher authority's oversight altogether. By doing so, this decision created a direct conflict with the holding in Sadanand Suroshe.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - M M Sathaye - Full Document
1