Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.72 seconds)Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006
After such a long time, therefore, the writ
petitions could not have been entertained even if they are
similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction
may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the
court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors
for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v.
Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347], U.P. Jal Nigam v.
Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464] and Karnataka
Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC
332])
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when
the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in
favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is
otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised
judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by
the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned.
In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct
exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on
the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and
technical considerations are pitted against each other, the
cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the
other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice
being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The court
should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact
emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners."
(xvii) In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, following the judgment in
P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case a junior is promoted over
his head, the senior must challenge it atleast within six months or at
the most a year of such seniority and that any one who sleeps over
his right is bound to suffer. At Paragraph 24, it is held as follows:
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
In
our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any
indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should
have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”
(xix) In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage
Board v. T.T.Murali Babu reported in 2014 (4) SCC 108, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 16 and 17, held as follows:
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh
and Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 278], this Court held:
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006
After such a long time, therefore, the writ
petitions could not have been entertained even if they are
similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction
may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the
court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors
for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v.
Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347], U.P. Jal Nigam v.
Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464] and Karnataka
Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC
332])
Board Of Secondary Education Of Assam vs Md. Sarifuz Zaman And Ors on 19 December, 2003
(ix)In Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Mohd.
Sarifuz Zaman, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 408, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008
(xii) In Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon
Medium Project, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the question of extension of limitation, in
matters pertaining to land acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex
Court explained the meaning of the word ‘limitation’ scope, rationale
and
http://www.judis.nic.in the object in the enactments. While explaining limitation and
18
exercise of power of condonation by courts, at paragraph 14, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors on 16 August, 1973
27. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as
“statutes of peace”. An unlimited and perpetual threat of
limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of
limitation is essential for public order. This Court in Rajender
Singh v. Santa Singh, reported in 1973 (2) SCC 705, has
observed: (SCC p. 712, para 18)
“18. The object of law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or
deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and
justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a
party’s own inaction, negligence or laches.”
Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968
In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, reported in
1969 (1) SCC 110, this Court observed that this principle is
based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”,
that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be
end to litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a
means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and perjury,
quickening diligence and preventing oppression.
http://www.judis.nic.in 29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object
20
for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing
a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare.
They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory
tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his
Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of
the vigilant and not of the sleepy.