Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Umar (Minor) Rep. By His Father Guardian ... on 10 September, 1996 cites

United India Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Pravin Paul And Anr. on 17 November, 1992

5. I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The order can be said to have been set aside, but it cannot be said that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court had been overruled since the Supreme Court had not discussed anything on merits. From a look at the order of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Supreme Court had imposed certain conditions on the Insurance Company and since those conditions have been complied with, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, without considering the legality of the order of this Court reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Pondicherry v. Pravin Paul (2) N. Periannan, 1993 (1) L.W. 68 on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, ; G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., there should be some liberal approach in considering the petitions for condonation of the delay, especially when such petitions are filed either by the Government or by the State Undertaking Corporations. 1 have carefully considered those decisions. In fact, liberal approach has to be made in considering the claim of the petitioners they have given some details with regard to the administrative delay. In the absence of any reason, the liberal approach is not possible, because the Court has to consider whether the reason given by the petitioner will amount to sufficient cause or not. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not furnished the date on which the Regional Office, Madras received the papers and when the Managers were deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance and when they returned from such discussion over the policy matters or when their work was over. These dates arc essential to consider whether the petitioner had, acted bona fide without any unnecessary delay. In the absence of such relevant dates, it cannot be said that the petitioners has acted bona fide on their part. When the bona fide is under doubtful, then, there cannot be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay irrespective of the number of days delay in filing the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 754 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, ; G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., there should be some liberal approach in considering the petitions for condonation of the delay, especially when such petitions are filed either by the Government or by the State Undertaking Corporations. 1 have carefully considered those decisions. In fact, liberal approach has to be made in considering the claim of the petitioners they have given some details with regard to the administrative delay. In the absence of any reason, the liberal approach is not possible, because the Court has to consider whether the reason given by the petitioner will amount to sufficient cause or not. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not furnished the date on which the Regional Office, Madras received the papers and when the Managers were deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance and when they returned from such discussion over the policy matters or when their work was over. These dates arc essential to consider whether the petitioner had, acted bona fide without any unnecessary delay. In the absence of such relevant dates, it cannot be said that the petitioners has acted bona fide on their part. When the bona fide is under doubtful, then, there cannot be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay irrespective of the number of days delay in filing the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, ; G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., there should be some liberal approach in considering the petitions for condonation of the delay, especially when such petitions are filed either by the Government or by the State Undertaking Corporations. 1 have carefully considered those decisions. In fact, liberal approach has to be made in considering the claim of the petitioners they have given some details with regard to the administrative delay. In the absence of any reason, the liberal approach is not possible, because the Court has to consider whether the reason given by the petitioner will amount to sufficient cause or not. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not furnished the date on which the Regional Office, Madras received the papers and when the Managers were deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance and when they returned from such discussion over the policy matters or when their work was over. These dates arc essential to consider whether the petitioner had, acted bona fide without any unnecessary delay. In the absence of such relevant dates, it cannot be said that the petitioners has acted bona fide on their part. When the bona fide is under doubtful, then, there cannot be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay irrespective of the number of days delay in filing the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 686 - Full Document
1