Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996
4. It has been further contended that the State, after obtaining
necessary documents and information with respect to the case, some
delay was occurred due to fulfillment of various departmental formalities
and working of the Government machinery, because the State
Government is a multi functioning body, hence, at times the fulfillment of
departmental formalities takes unexpected long time. Therefore, in some
cases the State is prevented from filing the case within the prescribed
period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The instant
Wa 326 of 2026
3
appeal is, therefore, being filed after a delay of 473 days from the
prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "State of
Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others" (1996) 3 SCC 132, to buttress
his submissions. As such, the learned State counsel prays that the delay
of 473 days in preferring the petition may be condoned.
Union Of India vs Tarsem Singh on 19 September, 2019
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Union of India and
others v. Tarsem Singh" (2008) 8 SCC 652 summarized the settled
principles in the following manner:-
Thressiamma Jacob Etc. Etc. vs Geologist, Dptt.Of Mining And Geology ... on 20 April, 2015
9. The Supreme Court in the matter of "C. Jacob v. Director of
Geology and Mining and others" (2008) 10 SCC 115, having found that
the employee suddenly brought up a challenge to the order of termination
Wa 326 of 2026
5
of his services after 20 years and claimed all consequential benefits, held
that the relief sought for was inadmissible. The legal position in this
regard was laid out in the following terms:-
1