Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)
J&K State Board Of School Education And ... vs Mir Asif Fayaz And Another on 12 November, 2020 cites

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

18.Bare perusal of this provision specifies that firstly this is an enabling provision and nothing more. It enables a Court to condone the delay, subject to the Court being satisfied that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay. The Court can only examine the submissions of the parties on the basis of facts averred and made out in application for 14 CR no.50/2018 condonation. The Court cannot decide sufficiency of cause de hors the facts pleaded and made out. Whether cause shown was sufficient or otherwise, cannot be converted into a question of principle, as attempted by learned counsel for petitioner-Board, on the basis of the decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra). Thus, I have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that phrase "sufficient cause" involves only questions of fact to be considered by the Court dealing with an application for condonation of delay, and in considering sufficiency of cause, no question of principle is involved, except that a liberal view should be adopted in the examination and interpretation of the facts which seek to establish.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Shyam Sundar Sarma vs Pannalal Jaiswal And Others on 4 November, 2004

25.There is also a submission on the part of learned counsel for respondent no.1, and that submission has a substance, that logical sequitur of the analysis made in the case of Shyam Sunder v. Pannalal Jaiswaland (supra) is that an appeal along with an application for delay in filing 19 CR no.50/2018 that appeal, when dismissed on refusal to condone the delay, is a decree within meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in ultimate analysis revision petition on hand fails as the same is not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 219 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

The Reliable Water Supply Service Of ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 January, 1971

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that Appellate Court did not appreciate explanation tendered by petitioners in preferring Appeal beyond the period of limitation. Copy of judgement and decree is stated to have been received by petitioners on 29th August 2015, which was conveyed to counsel so as to file an Appeal, who for reason of frequent strikes, particularly in the month of August and October, filed Appeal late by a month, which period, as maintained by learned counsel for petitioners, is a small interval and does not require any stringent application. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed on Reliable Water Supply Service of India v. Union of India, (1972) 4 SCC 168; Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and another v. Mst Khatiji and others, AIR 1987 SCC 1353; 3 CR no.50/2018 Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (5) SCC 749; Riyaz Ahmad Bhat v. Abdul Majid Bhat, 2004 (1) JKJ 608 HC; Kishori Lal and others v. Chaman Lal and others, 2007 (1) SLJ 268; Ajay Bansal v. Anup Mehta and others, AIR 2007 SC 909; Col. Anil Kak (Retd.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 18 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Abdul Aziz Mir vs Suhail Nabi & Ors on 31 October, 2018

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 vehemently insists that petitioner-Board has miserably failed before Appellate Court to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in preferring Appeal, inasmuch as application for condonation of delay was totally incorrect vague, false and baseless. According to him petitioner-Board being most highest and responsible hierarchy of public servants, deliberately and intentionally gave a false affidavit by submitting that they were having no knowledge of judgement and decree notwithstanding the fact that they participated in proceedings before Trial Court, submitted its written statement, cross-examined witnesses, submitted Arguments through their counsel, and heard judgement when learned Trial Court pronounced the same in open Court in presence of counsels for parties. Thus, the time against petitioner-Board started from the date of judgement/decree i.e. 2nd July 2015 and that petitioner-Board suppressed the date when it applied for certified copy of judgement and decree; besides there was no change in standing counsel of appellant- Board, who was all along Mr M.D. Parvaiz, Advocate, and he appeared throughout in the suit and was also present at the time of 4 CR no.50/2018 pronouncement of judgement. So the legal presumption is that said Advocate had informed petitioner-Board regarding judgement and decree when it was pronounced by Trial Court. His next submission is that the whole controversy relates only about correction of parentage and petitioner-Board has unnecessarily dragged respondent no.1 by protracting the matter. Learned counsel has relied upon Shyam Sunder Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal and others, AIR 2005 SC 226; Abdul Aziz Mir v. Suhail Nabi and others, SLJ 2018 (2) HC 760; D. Tarini Patro and others v. M. Jagannath Rao, AIR 2018 Orissa 53.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that Appellate Court did not appreciate explanation tendered by petitioners in preferring Appeal beyond the period of limitation. Copy of judgement and decree is stated to have been received by petitioners on 29th August 2015, which was conveyed to counsel so as to file an Appeal, who for reason of frequent strikes, particularly in the month of August and October, filed Appeal late by a month, which period, as maintained by learned counsel for petitioners, is a small interval and does not require any stringent application. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed on Reliable Water Supply Service of India v. Union of India, (1972) 4 SCC 168; Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and another v. Mst Khatiji and others, AIR 1987 SCC 1353; 3 CR no.50/2018 Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (5) SCC 749; Riyaz Ahmad Bhat v. Abdul Majid Bhat, 2004 (1) JKJ 608 HC; Kishori Lal and others v. Chaman Lal and others, 2007 (1) SLJ 268; Ajay Bansal v. Anup Mehta and others, AIR 2007 SC 909; Col. Anil Kak (Retd.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 3106 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Ajay Bansal vs Anup Mehta & Ors on 16 January, 2007

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that Appellate Court did not appreciate explanation tendered by petitioners in preferring Appeal beyond the period of limitation. Copy of judgement and decree is stated to have been received by petitioners on 29th August 2015, which was conveyed to counsel so as to file an Appeal, who for reason of frequent strikes, particularly in the month of August and October, filed Appeal late by a month, which period, as maintained by learned counsel for petitioners, is a small interval and does not require any stringent application. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed on Reliable Water Supply Service of India v. Union of India, (1972) 4 SCC 168; Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and another v. Mst Khatiji and others, AIR 1987 SCC 1353; 3 CR no.50/2018 Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (5) SCC 749; Riyaz Ahmad Bhat v. Abdul Majid Bhat, 2004 (1) JKJ 608 HC; Kishori Lal and others v. Chaman Lal and others, 2007 (1) SLJ 268; Ajay Bansal v. Anup Mehta and others, AIR 2007 SC 909; Col. Anil Kak (Retd.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 50 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next