Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
The said
judgment has taken into consideration the judgment of
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs.
Mst.Katiji and others, reported in 1987 AIR 1353 SC
and other judgments.
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8376
WP No. 112254 of 2017
C/W WP No. 112253 of 2017
proceedings and acts and sleeps like Kumbhakarna, cannot
be granted relief who suddenly rise like a phoenix and move
the Court as held in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee
(supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Exe. Officer,Antiyur Town Panchayat vs G.Arumugam (D) By Lrs on 19 January, 2015
13. Learned Senior Counsel relies on paragraphs No.2
and 3 in the judgment in the case of Executive Officer,
Antiyur Town Panchayat vs. G.Arumugam, reported in
(2015)3 SCC 569, which reads as under:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Govt. Of Maharashtra And Others (Water ... vs M/S. Borse Brothers Engineers And ... on 17 December, 2020
In the judgment relied by learned
counsel for the respondents in the case of Government of
Maharashtra (Water Resources Department)
represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers
Engineers stated supra of the Full Bench, the matter that
was dealt with pertains to the Arbitration Act and the
Commercial Courts Act, which specifically provides a
particular timeline and time limit for filing of the appeal
which was considered therein. The present case does not
deal with the Arbitration Act or the Commercial Courts Act.
Therefore, the facts and circumstances are clearly different
in both these cases.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
62. Also, it must be remembered that
merely because sufficient cause has been made
out in the facts of a given case, there is no right
in the appellant to have delay condoned. This was
felicitously put in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.
[Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., (1962) 2 SCR
762 : AIR 1962 SC 361] as follows : (SCR p. 771
: AIR p. 365, para 12)
"12. It is, however, necessary to
emphasise that even after sufficient
cause has been shown a party is not
entitled to the condonation of delay in
question as a matter of right. The
proof of a sufficient cause is a