Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001
Katiji (1987) 2 SCC
107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and
10Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106.
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
In
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court
has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude
is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by
the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of
pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time
causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
(1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3
SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State
of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v.
Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed
Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."
State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996
In
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court
has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude
is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by
the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of
pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time
causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
(1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3
SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State
of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v.
Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed
Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."
State Of Up & Ors vs Harish Chandra & Ors on 12 April, 1996
In
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court
has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude
is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by
the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of
pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time
causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
(1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3
SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State
of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v.
Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed
Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."
Nathu Prasad vs Singhai Kapurchand on 5 February, 1976
A
similar view was taken by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Nathu Prasad Vs. Singhai Kapurchand 1976 AIR (M.P.) 136.
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
In
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court
has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude
is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by
the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of
pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time
causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
(1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3
SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State
of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v.
Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed
Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."
State (Nct Of Delhi) vs Ahmed Jaan on 12 August, 2008
In
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court
has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude
is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by
the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of
pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time
causing delay - G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
(1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (1996) 3
SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, State
of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu(1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v.
Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed
Jaan (2008) 14 SCC 582."