Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.61 seconds)

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964

3. The learned single Judge has rightly held that grant of writ LPA No.237/2009 Page 1 of 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary relief and in order to exercise the discretion in favour of a party, there should be no inordinate delay or latches. The learned single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. The learned single Judge observed in the impugned order that though the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed in January, 2005, the writ petition was filed only in 2009 thus entailing a delay of more than four years. The review petition, purported to have been filed by the appellant, had been filed only after the expiry of more than three years from the date of the disposal of the appeal. Therefore, the learned single Judge correctly came to the conclusion that the appellant was trying to rake up a stale claim which was hit by inordinate delay and latches. The learned single Judge also rightly held that there was no question of issuing a direction to the respondent to dispose of the review petition purported to have been filed in February, 2008 as the review petition itself had been filed after the expiry of more than three years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 829 - K C Gupta - Full Document

C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ... on 3 October, 2008

The learned single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Jacob Vs. Directorate of Geology and Mining & Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Court should be circumspect in issuing directions to the Department for a fresh consideration of a stale claim as such a direction leads to the revival of the case to be considered on merits at subsequent stages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 493 - Full Document

Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 December, 2002

4. As held by the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal vs. Union of LPA No.237/2009 Page 2 of 3 India, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 195, that the contention that because of latches no third party rights have intervened and that by granting relief no other persons rights are going to be effected is only one of the consideration which the court takes into account while determining whether a writ petition suffers from latches. It is a well settled policy of law that parties should pursue their rights and remedies promptly and should not sleep over their rights. That is the whole policy behind the Limitation Act and other rules of limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 461 - S N Variava - Full Document
1