Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.99 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise vs Modi Steels on 6 January, 1992 cites

Collector Of Customs vs Ajanta Tubes Ltd. on 22 February, 1989

A simple perusal of the same shows that the only ground is misplacement of papers. This Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ajanta Tubes Ltd. vide order No. 25189-B2 dated 22nd February, 1989 1989 (23) ECR 234 (Cegat SB-B2) had held that misplacement of papers is not a sufficient cause and this view of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ajanta Tubes Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 3008/89 reported in 1990 (47) ELT A104.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Ramnath And Ors. on 8 February, 1971

A simple perusal of the appellant's prayer for condonation of delay in these four appeals, clearly shows that the only ground taken by the appellant is that of misplacing of papers and the appellant has not filed any separate applications for condonation of delay duly supported with Affidavits explaining the circumstances which resulted in the delay in filing of revision applications (now appeals). It is a settled law that where the appellant acts without due care and attention there is no sufficient cause for extension of time. This was observed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ramnath (not cited by the parties).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the case of State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality that the expression 'sufficient cause' cannot be considered too liberally merely because the party in default is the Government. It is no doubt true that whether it is a Government or a private party, the provisions of law applicable arc the same, unless the Statute itself makes any distinction. But it cannot also be gain-said that similar consideration that will be shown by courts to a private party when he claims the protection under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should also be available to the State. In para 30 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Court had further observed that the 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when any negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. Similar is the position in the case of a corporate body which is not entitled to a greater indulgence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act than a private individual.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 827 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document
1   2 Next