Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
26.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would rely upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 3 SCC 436 in the matter of State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, where the learned Additional Government Pleader would rely upon the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which reads thus:
Shri Sc Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 23 September, 2014
R.M. Arunachalam vs Pl.R. Arunachalam Chettiar And Ors. on 19 October, 2000
M. Sudakar vs V.Manoharan & Ors on 7 December, 2010
7)(2011) 1 Court Cases 484
M.Sudakar v. V.Manoharan and others
High Court Of Judicature At Patna vs Madan Mohan Prasad & Ors on 5 September, 2011
8)(2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 65
High court of Judicature of Patna vs. Madan Mohan Prasad and others
Kamlesh Babu & Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors on 16 April, 2008
52.In the very first appeal, the respondent filed Writ Petition on 11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, makes it obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made after the prescribed period even though the limitation is not set up as a defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the matter. (See: Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu & Ors., AIR 1944 Privy Council 24; and Kamlesh Babu & Ors. v. Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors, (2008) 12 SCC 577).
Rup Diamonds & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 January, 1989
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a
proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See: M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366).
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs S.M. Kotrayya & Ors. ... Respondents on 2 September, 1996
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a
proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See: M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366).
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a
proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. (See: M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors., v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 674; State of Karnataka & Ors. v. S.M. Kotrayya & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 267; and Jagdish Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2366).