Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)

Land Acquisition Officer, Dy. ... vs Gonda Chinna Rajanna on 10 March, 1999

23. The Division Bench of the High Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Collector, Pochampad v. Gonda Chinna Rajanna (cited supra), wherein petitions were filed for restoration of reference by the petitioners after a delay ranging from 17 years to 22 years to set aside the ex-parte decree and the learned counsel for the respondents therein also submitted that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be dismissed for default of the claimant or it cannot be closed for non-appearance of the claimant, the Division Bench observed that:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - R M Bapat - Full Document

Bhag Mal(Alias) Ram Bux & Ors vs Munshi(D) By Lrs on 17 January, 2007

In Bhag Mal alias Ram Bux and Ors. vs. Munshi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 285], it has been observed that different provisions of Limitation Act may require different construction, as for example, the court exercises its power in a given case liberally in condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, however, the same may not be true while construing Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It, therefore, follows that though liberal interpretation has to be given in construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act but not in applying Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which has to be construed strictly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 20 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next