Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.62 seconds)Oriental Aroma Chemical Indus.Ltd vs Gujarat Indisl.Devt.Corp.& Anr on 26 February, 2010
In this context, we may refer with profit to the
authority in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries
Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
and another, 2010 (5) SCC 459, where a Two-Judge
Bench of this Court has observed that the law of
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature
does not prescribe limitation with the object of
destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that
they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy
without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy
must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature.
To put it differently, the Law of Limitation prescribes a
period within which legal remedy can be availed for
redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the
Courts are bestowed with the power to condone the
delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the
remedy within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the
learned Judges proceeded to state that this Court has
justifiably advocated adoption of liberal approach in
condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter
approach where the delay is inordinate.
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
In the decision N.Balakrishnan, supra, the delay
was properly explained and only after having established the sufficient
cause, the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay. In the case on
hand, admittedly, there was no proper explanation for the inordinate
delay 2224 days in filing the appeal.
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G.
Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead)
and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and
others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti
Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited
v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5)
SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing
with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held thus:
O.P. Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh (Dead) And Ors. on 23 July, 1984
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G.
Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead)
and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and
others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti
Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited
v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5)
SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing
with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held thus:
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G.
Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead)
and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and
others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti
Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited
v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5)
SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing
with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held thus:
New India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult on 10 October, 1975
The
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments in G.
Ramegowda, Major and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142; O.P. Kathpallia v. Lakhmir Singh (dead)
and others, 1984 (4) SCC 66; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and
others, 2005 (3) SCC 752; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti
Misra, 1975 (2) SCC 840; Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited
v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5)
SCC 459, which declared that the Court should be liberal in dealing
with condone delay petition. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held thus:
Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors on 9 June, 2010
In Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh
and others, 2010 (6) SCC 786, it has been held that
while considering an Application for condonation of
delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to
the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have
been
made out or not. It has been further stated therein
that each case has to be weighed from its facts and the
circumstances in which the party acts and behaves.
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010
12. A reference to the principle stated in Balwant Singh
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
(dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others, 2010 (8) SCC 685
would be quite fruitful.
Union Of India vs Ram Charan & Others on 30 April, 1963
In the said ca se the
Courtreferred to the pronouncements in Union of India
v. Ram Charan, AIR 1964 SC 215; P.K. Ramachandran
v. State of Kerala, 1997 (2) CTC 663 (SC) : 1997 (7)
SCC 556; and Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti
Subba Rao, 2009 (4) CTC 286 (SC): 2009 (11) SCC
183 and stated thus: