Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 21 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Phagu Mal Rattan Chand And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 May, 1988
6. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rattan Chand Samanta v. Union of India, 1994 SCC (L&S) 182 whereby the Apex Court has ruled that delay deprives the right of the claim.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Section 19 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
Besides other judgments of the Apex Court, decisions in the case of S.S. Rathore v. Union of India & others, (1992) 3 SCC 136, Arun Agarwal v. Nagseeka Exports Pvt. Ltd., (2002) 10 SCC 101 and the latest decision in Union of India & others v. M.R. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 have also been relied upon and it is submitted that in view of the position clarified by the Apex Court, the applicant has not given any sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as such MA seeking condonation of delay is required to be rejected.
D.C.S. Negi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 2008
9. Since the learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that the OA is hopelessly time barred, the said question is required to be decided at the first instance. At this stage, we wish to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7956/2011) decided on 7.3.2011 whereby the Apex Court while dismissing the Appeal has observed that the Administrative Tribunal established under the Act is duty bound to first consider whether the application is within limitation and application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3). The Apex Court has further observed that Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain this omission by pointing out that in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, no such objection was raised but we have not felt impressed. In our view, the Tribunal cannot abdicates its duty to act in accordance with the statute under which it is established and the fact that an objection of limitation is not raised by the respondent/non applicant is not at all relevant. At this stage, it will be useful to quote relevant portion of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, which thus reads: