Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.61 seconds)State Of Karnataka & Ors vs S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. ... Respondents on 2 September, 1996
Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in the
case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M.Kotrayya & Ors. reported in
(1996) 6 SCC 267. In that case the respondents woke up to claim
the relief which was granted to their colleagues by the Tribunal with
an application to condone the delay. The Tribunal condoned the
delay. Therefore, the State approached this Court and this Court after
considering the matter observed as under :
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
Similarly, in the case of Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana
& ors. reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538, this Court reaffirmed the rule if a
person chose to sit over the matter and then woke up after the
decision of the Court, then such person cannot stand to benefit. In
that case it was observed as follows :
Union Of India & Ors vs C.K.Dharagupta & Ors on 31 December, 1996
" We, however, clarify that in view of our
finding that the judgment of the Tribunal in R.P.Joshi
gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said
judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any
other person.
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
In the case of Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy & Ors.
reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347, their Lordships considered delay as
serious factor and have not granted relief. Therein it was observed as
follows :
Deena Alias Deen Dayal And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 September, 1983
As against this, our attention was invited to a decision of this
Court in the case of Dayal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 593. In that case their Lordships observed
that when the High Court exercised discretion and condoned the
delay, it is not proper for the Supreme Court at the SLP stage to set
aside the High Court's order on that ground alone and more so,
where the impugned judgment is legally sustainable. This case does
not provide any assistance to the respondents.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
In this regard, a
reference was made to a decision of this Court in the case of
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. reported in (1990) 4
SCC 207. In that case the question was to grant pensionary benefit
to the provident fund holders of the railways. A submission was made
if the Court feels that a positive direction cannot be given to the
government, it was prayed that at least an option should be given to
the respondents either to withdraw the benefit of switching over to
pension from everyone or to give it to the petitioners as well, so that
the discrimination must go. This Court negatived the submission and
it was observed as follows :
Rup Diamonds & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 January, 1989
In this
connection, our attention was invited to a decision of this Court in the
case of M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported
in (1989) 2 SCC 356, wherein their Lordships observed that those
people who were sitting on the fence till somebody else took up the
matter to the court for refund of duty, cannot be given the benefit. In
that context, their Lordships held as follows :
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1