Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.68 seconds)Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
11. Learned counsel for the appellant referred two judgments
(1) M/S. Tech Sharp Engineers Pvt... Ltd vs. Sanghvi Movers Limited
reported in AIR 2022 SC 4402 and
(2) Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And... Vs. Gobardhan Sao And
Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 1201 to satisfy this Court that this
Court has discretionary power to condone the long delay in an appeal filed
under the said Act. Upon perusal of the judgments, this Court does not
repose confidence to allow application for condonation of 3437 days delay
8
in filing appeal as the first referred Judgment held in Paragraphs 28 and
29 as follows:
Basawaraj vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 May, 2008
13. The parameters discussed in the ratio of Basawaraj and Another
(supra) in the context of "sufficient cause" is obviously not fulfilled in the
instant case as it reveals from the grounds or causes set forth by the
Appellant in an application for condonation of delay.
Manindra Land And Buildingcorporation ... vs Bhutnath Banerjee And Others on 2 May, 1963
However, the facts and circumstances of each case must
afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to
exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court
1
(2013) 14 SCC 81
10
exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The
applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by
any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless
a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not
allow the application for condonation of delay. The court
has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was
merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra
Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR
1964 SC 1336], Mata Dinv.
Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011
A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC
770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC
545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150] and
Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan
Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24 : AIR
2012 SC 1629].)
Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC
993] this Court explained the difference between a "good
cause" and a "sufficient cause" and observed that every
"sufficient cause" is a good cause and vice versa. However,
if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of
good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than
that of "sufficient cause".
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity
and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
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.
(See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7
SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC
705: AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon
Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
907].)" [emphasis supplied]
Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors on 16 August, 1973
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity
and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
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.
(See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7
SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC
705: AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon
Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
907].)" [emphasis supplied]
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008
An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity
and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
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.
(See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7
SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC
705: AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon
Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
907].)" [emphasis supplied]