Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.80 seconds)
Balwant Singh vs Uoi & Anr. on 18 April, 2013 cites

Office Of The Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr on 24 February, 2012

5. It is true that the decision in Maniben Devraj Shah (supra) and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors.(Supra) were rendered in the context of State and its instrumentalities, the rigor of the law of limitation would apply with greater force in case of an individual, who is expected to remain vigilant in pursuing his legal remedies, he being the sole master of his personal affairs. The only reason given in the application is that the counsel who was representing the appellant had informed him that he would get advance notice whenever his matter was listed for hearing in the "regular board". However, no affidavit of the counsel has been filed by the appellant in support of this claim. The Rules of this Court do not provide for such a notice to be given and the litigant is required to appear either personally or through counsel as and when an admitted appeal comes up for hearing. Admittedly, no action has been taken by the appellant against the counsel who according to him had given such information to him. In absence of an affidavit from the counsel, I cannot accept this otherwise untenable plea. In the absence of any such practice to this effect, no counsel is likely to give such an information to the client.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1704 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Saraswati Devi (D) By Lr vs Delhi Devt.Atuhority & Ors on 29 January, 2013

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Saraswati Devi (D) By LR vs. Delhi Devt. Authority & Ors. [2013(135) DRJ 6 (SC)]. In that case, the Supreme Court referred to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court condoning the delay of about 760 days in filing the LPA against the decision of a learned Single Judge. A perusal of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, as extracted in the decision of the Supreme Court, would show that the appellant before the Division Bench had submitted that his absence was neither wilful nor due to negligence to duty but due to the time-consuming and unavoidable administrative procedure which had to be gone through in the case where the litigant is the government and the decision has to be taken collectively. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court RFA 715/2003 Page 7 of 8 would not apply to the case before me for a number of reasons. Firstly, the delay in this case is for more than 7 years whereas the delay in the case before the Division Bench was about two years only. Secondly, the appellant before the Division Bench was DDA, where decision to file an appeal is to be taken after the matter has been examined by various levels, which is a time-consuming process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 7 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1