Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)
Shah Raza Razia Khatoon vs The State Of Bihar Through Secretary on 22 February, 2022 cites

Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003

The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law." Likewise, in the judgment rendered in Govt. of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors. [ (2004) 1 SCC 347], Their Lordships considered delay as serious factor and not granted relief, and hold at paragraph 34 as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 640 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc vs Debdas Kumar And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1991

In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided, but one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in State of W.B. v. Debdas Kumar reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 138. The plea of delay, which Mr Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law, no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 74 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006

7. It is true that for filing writ petition the law of limitation does not apply, but, the principle of delay and laches applies where the aggrieved party approaches the Court after inordinate delay, as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. V. Jaswant Singh & Anr. [(2006) 11 SCC 464], wherein on the ground of principle of delay and laches as under paragraph nos. 9 to 11, it has been held that the delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 661 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Kamta Pandey vs B.C.C.L. Through ... on 8 August, 2007

9. So far as merit of the issue is concerned, it is settled principle of law that if there is any dispute in date of birth, the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate is considered to be conclusive piece of evidence, as per judgment rendered in Kamta Pandey Vs. B.C.C.L [2007 (3) JLJR 726 (F.B.)], wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court taking into consideration catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion at paragraph 29, which reads as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995

542) 'The delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan reported in (1995) 6 SCC 684. The appellants' desperate attempt to redo the seniority is not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage'
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 447 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1