Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)
The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Dilip Kumar Munka on 1 May, 2025 cites

Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006

55. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in 2023 (10) SCC 531 (Sheo Raj Singh (d) through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr) wherein the Apex Court has held in para 35.2 "the expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough for courts to do substantial justice. 35.3. It is upon the courts to consider the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay, and the length of delay is not always decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay is properly explained. 35.4. It is further held that a distinction should be drawn between inordinate unexplained delay and explained delay, where in the present case, the first respondent had sufficiently explained the delay on account of negligence on part of the government functionaries and the government counsel on record before the Reference Court. 41. An exercise of jurisdiction does, at times, call for liberal and justice oriented approach by the courts where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 48/66 appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order on lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored".
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005

58. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay and replied the submission based on citation. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioners have relied upon State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (supra). The said judgment arises out of a criminal appeal. The State preferred appeal against acquittal and application for grant of leave was made in terms of Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as there was delay in making the application for grant of leave in terms of Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., application for condoning the delay was filed. There was delay of 57 days in preferring application for grant of leave under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court refused to condone the delay of 57 days on the ground that it is a duty of litigant to file appeal before expiry of limitation period. Merely because the Additional Advocate General did not file an appeal inspite of instructions issued to him that did not constitute sufficient cause and further the fact that the records were purportedly missing was not valid ground. Consequently, the application for grant of leave was rejected by the High Court. The Apex Court condoned the delay of 57 days in filing the Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 51/66 grant of leave and set aside High Court's judgment. In the present cases, in all the revision applications, almost same grounds have been taken by the authorities concerned with regard to movement of file for obtaining sanction and other formalities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1149 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court in paragraph 18 has relied upon a Patna High Court C.R. No.9 of 2017(32) dt.01-05-2025 49/66 decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy) wherein, the Apex Court has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. In paragraph 13 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that while condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2563 - Full Document

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 24 February, 2011

57. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) By Lrs vs State Of A.P. & Ors reported in 2011 (4) SCC 363 wherein the Apex Court has held that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 513 - S S Nijjar - Full Document
1   2 Next