Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.13 seconds)
Rajangam vs Smt. Senthamaraj on 3 March, 2016 cites

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002

7. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [2002(3) SCC 195], explained the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court very clearly observed that explanation for the delay should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 822 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Standard Treads Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 February, 1996

5. ..... Judiciary gets its respect in the legal order not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds. But, it has the capacity and purpose to remove injustice wherever it is in sight and this is what is understood and pointed out by the Apex Court as justice-oriented approach in regard to the matters being thrown out at the threshold of the concerned proceedings. 8.2. Considering the dictum laid down in the above cases, it is for this Court to consider the cumulative circumstances available in tis case as to the nature of the relief claimed, the stake involved and the possibility of doing substantial justice to the parties, while compensating the party who suffered inconvenience.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - G Sivarajan - Full Document
1