Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)Ram Avtar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 March, 2022
9. This Court in Writ C No. 4796 of 2022 titled as Ram Avtar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on March 7, 2022 has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and latches. Relevant paras of the said judgement are extracted below:-
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
In P. S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, wherein it has been laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for the relief.
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, the Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013
In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others 2013 (6) SLR 629, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches observed that even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
12. Relying on T.T. Murali Babu' case (supra) and R.K. Zalpuri'case (supra), same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. N. Murugesan and others (2022) 2 SCC 25 observing:
Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968
In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is as follows:-
State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs R.K. Zalpuri And Ors on 8 October, 2015
In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R. K. Zalpuri and others 2015 (15) SCC 602, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding delay and laches in raising the dispute before the Court. It was opined that the issue sought to be raised by the petitioners therein was not required to be addressed on merits on account of delay and laches. The relevant paras thereof are extracted below:-
Union Of India vs Chaman Rana on 12 March, 2018
9. The aforesaid view was followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana 2018 (5) SCC 798.
M. Venkateswara Rao vs Andhra Bank Represented By Its Chairman ... on 15 March, 2019
10. Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation v. Shree Lal Meena (2019) 4 SCC 479, considering the principle of delay and laches, opined as under:-