Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)

The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs T.P. Kunhaliumma on 29 October, 1976

However, it deserves mention that in The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T. P. Kunhaliumma, (supra), it was observed that "this Court in Nityananda Joshi's case (1969-II-LLJ-711) (SC) has rightly thrown doubt on the two Judge Bench decision of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case (supra) where this court construed Article 137 to be referable to application under the Civil Procedure erable to applications under Article the Civil Procedures Code. "In paragraph 21, it was held that "the conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to the civil Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 255 - A N Ray - Full Document

Mani Ram vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 27 February, 1996

13. Similarly, in Mani Ram's case (supra), a delay of four years was over-looked and it was said that the employee was not entitled to the back wages for that period. Since we have reservations about the view expressed by the Bench, it would have been appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. However, it does not appear necessary to do so in view of the fact that there are other binding decisions which seem to answer the question involved in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - R L Anand - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964

Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Bhailal Bhai and Other AIR 1964 SC 1006. Still further, even in cases where the strict rule of limitation is not attracted, the principle of laches has been applied. It is based on the maxim - 'Delay defeats equity'. Thus, the Court refuses to grant an injunction, appoint a receiver or even order specific performance in cases where the delay on the part of the applicant has caused prejudice to the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 829 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next