Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
G Rangarao S/O Achhanna vs The Deputy Commissioner on 25 February, 2026 cites

R. Rudrappa vs Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga ... on 4 November, 1998

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3031 WP No. 110072 of 2025 AND CONNECTED MATTERS HC-KAR and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. ......"
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - M Anwar - Full Document

Ningappa S/O Bheerappa Purad vs Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District on 26 July, 2023

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3031 WP No. 110072 of 2025 AND CONNECTED MATTERS HC-KAR to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav & Ors., [2017 (6) Scale 459] and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. [C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011] reiterated a settled position in law that whether statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time.'' (para 8) 4.3.2 It was further stated, "An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S V Shetty - Full Document

Union Of India vs N Murugesan on 7 October, 2021

4.7 From the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25], the Division Bench highlighted the nice distinction between 'delay and laches', as against 'limitation'. It was observed that the 'limitation' is a prescription of time for taking an action as contemplated by the legislature, whereas the concept of 'delay and laches' has a different connotation to operate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 102 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Chhedi Lal Yadav(D) Thr. Lr. And Ors. vs Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. And Ors. on 12 September, 2017

"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 269 - Full Document
1   2 Next