Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.62 seconds)The Chit Funds Act, 1982
Section 65 in The Chit Funds Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
19. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners also relied upon the decision reported in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, wherein it has been held thus:-
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
In this respect K.T. Thomas, J. relied upon the earlier pronouncements reported in Shakunthala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari, and State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality, . The Apex Court ultimately held thus:-
Sandhya Rani Sarkar vs Sudha Rani Debi And Ors on 14 February, 1978
In this respect the learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in Sri Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi, and contended that cause shown is not sufficient . The learned counsel relied upon the following passage:-
Sitaram Ramcharan Etc. vs M.N. Nagarshana And Ors. on 25 September, 1959
"It is undoubtedly true that in dealing with the question of condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the party seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed time and this has always been understood to mean that the explanation has to cover the whole period of delay, vide Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana. However, it is not possible to lay down precisely as to what facts or matters would constitute sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act. But those words should be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or any inaction or want of bona fides is imputable to a party, i.e., the delay in filing an appeal should not have been for reasons which indicate the party's negligence in not taking unnecessary steps which he would have or should have taken.