Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.42 seconds)Charminar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. ... vs State Bank Of Hyderabad And Anr. on 16 May, 2007
In the said decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court
observed as follows:-
S. Nagaraj And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 26 August, 1993
22. Justice is a virtue, which transcends all
barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor the technicalities of law
can stand in its way. The order of the court should not be
prejudicial to anyone. It is said even the law bends before justice.
(See S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another
and other SLP (C)s, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Uday Shankar Triyar vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2005
In the case of Uday Shankar Triyar (supra), the
Supreme Court was considering the requirement of the appeal
memo being signed by the appellant or his pleader (duly authorized
by a Vakalatnama executed by the appellant) and held that such
requirement is no doubt mandatory, but it does not mean that
non-compliance should result in automatic rejection of the appeal
without an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the defect. If and
when a defect is noticed or pointed out, the Court should, either on
11
an application by the appellant or suo motu, permit the appellant
to rectify the defect by either signing the memorandum of appeal or
by furnishing the Vakalatnama. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 9 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs Nazmunnisa And Ors. on 17 July, 1997
12. On coming to the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Maharashtra and others (supra) cited by
Miss Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be seen that
in the said decision, while dealing with the question of condonation
of delay in filing the appeal by the State of Maharashtra, which
was rejected by the High Court, observed that the appeal was filed
with a copy of the judgment in time. However, copy of the decree
was filed later on. That is the cause of delay as mentioned in the
SLP, which stated that under the amended change of law the
judgment and decree bears the same date and when the judgment
is filed in time along with the appeal in time, the non-filing of a
decree being a technical flaw ought to have been regularized by
formal condonation of delay.
1