Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)
Sri K D Lingaraju S/O Late Doddaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 December, 2021 cites

R. Rudrappa vs Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga ... on 4 November, 1998

Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. RUDRAPPA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 2000 (1) KARNATAKA LAW JOURNAL, 523, MADDURAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2006 (4) KARNATAKA LAW JOURNAL, 303 AND G. MAREGOUDA VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA AND ORS, 2000(2) KR.L.J.SH. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 238 - M Anwar - Full Document

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2017

In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 which is further reiterated in the case of MR.VIVEK H HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND 6 OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 228. Hence, he submits that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have dropped the proceedings under the PTCL Act on the ground of delay and laches. But on the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and declared the sale deed as null and void. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, he submits that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, on the grounds prays to allow the writ petition.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 373 - Full Document

Pune Municipal Corporation vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 February, 2007

In PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2007) 5 SCC 211] this court reproduced the following observations with regard to the declaration of orders beyond the period of limitation as invalid: (SCC p.226, para 39) "39. Setting aside the decree passed by all the courts and referring to several cases, this court held that if the party aggrieved by invalidity of the order intends to approach the court for declaration that the order against him was inoperative, he must come before the court within the period prescribed by limitation. 'If the statutory time of limitation expires, 11 the court cannot give the declaration sought for'."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Chhedi Lal Yadav(D) Thr. Lr. And Ors. vs Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. And Ors. on 12 September, 2017

"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which 9 enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of CHHEDI LAL YADAV & ORS. VS. HARI KISHORE YADAV (D) THR. LRS.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 269 - Full Document

Sri.Ningappa Hanamappa Hebsur vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 July, 2020

& ORS., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of NINGAPPA VS. DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS. (C.A.NO.3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an 10 unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 81 - S Govindaraj - Full Document
1