Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Smt. Soumya M Bapat vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2025 cites

Durga Prashad vs Chief Controller Of Imports & Exports & ... on 22 November, 1968

"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, [(1969) 1 SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769]. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 347 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Rabindranath Bose And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 October, 1969

8. It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this Court in which 22 this aspect has been dealt with in relation to Article 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has been stated as regards that article would apply, a fortiori, to Article 226. It was observed in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, [(1970) 1 SCC 84 : AIR 1970 SC 470] that no relief can be given to the petitioner who without any reasonable explanation approaches this Court under Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that though Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 199 - J C Shah - Full Document

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006

12. It is apposite to take note of the dicta laid down by this Court in Karnataka Power 20 Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322 whereunder it has been held that the High Court may refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction if there is negligence or omissions on the part of the applicant to assert his right. It has been further held thereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 376 - A Pasayat - Full Document

P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S.SADASIVASWAMY v/s STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has observed that it is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time. But it would be sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try 15 to unsettle settled matters. The above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court was while considering the case of challenge to a promotion belatedly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 685 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1   2 Next