Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.54 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dharmveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 15 June, 2012
28. In view of the above, present revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 4.8.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, District Agra in Criminal Misc. Application No.312 of 2015, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed in support of Criminal Appeal No.nil of 2015 (Dharmveer Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist-herein has been dismissed as being barred by limitation, consequent upon the rejection of the application preferred by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby set aside and delay, if any, in filing the appeal before the concerned Court below is hereby condoned with a further direction to hear the appeal on its merits.
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior vs Ramcharan (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 24 April, 2002
20. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Ramcharan (supra). In this case, there was a delay of 39 days in filing the second appeal. The explanation for the said delay was the failure of the counsel to appear on account of some confusion in noting the date of hearing and belated knowledge of the judgment and decree on the part of the counsel. The Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that the advocate of the applicant had nothing to gain by remaining absent at the time of hearing of the first appeal or by assigning a false cause for non-appearance at the time of hearing. Valuable rights of the parties in an immovable property were involved. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have taken a liberal, and not a rigid and too technical view of the issue before it and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and concentrated on examining whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law worth being heard by the court.
Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors on 8 July, 2010
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist has failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685 in support of his submission that liberal construction of the expression "sufficient cause" pre-supposes that there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant. He submits that in the present case, there is gross negligence on the part of the revisionist.
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
"6. At the same time, it has been consistently held in a number of judicial pronouncements that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, must receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and where there are no allegations of gross negligence, absence of bonafides, or intentional delay/inaction attributable to a party, generally, delays in preferring appeals, particularly when they are filed by the Government, are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, as also in public interest. (Refer: G. Ramegowda Major v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897)".
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
23. I may take note of another decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 195. In this decision, the Supreme Court observed:
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
In N. Balakrishnan (supra), the Supreme Court further observed: