Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)
Chhotu Ram vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 6 January, 2015 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

In Union of India and others v. M. K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, this Court, after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that when a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a Court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Ghanshyam Dass & Ors on 17 February, 2011

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others, (2011) 4 SCC 374, a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1977) 6 SCC 538 and proceeded to observe that as the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the order dated 7.7.1992.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 188 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

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 VARINDER SINGH 2015.01.20 10:33 CWP No. 80 of 2015 (6) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh High Court which had exercised the discretionary jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 582 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013

VARINDER SINGH 2015.01.20 10:33 CWP No. 80 of 2015 (2) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order on the ground of delay and laches only. The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2008. The present petition was filed in this Court on 5.1.2015 claiming the benefits which allegedly accrued to the petitioner in the year 2006. The same having been filed more than six years after his retirement deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches only. Apparently, the petitioner was satisfied at the relevant time and got a legal notice dated 19.9.2013 issued about five years after his retirement. Merely because on a legal notice so served, a fresh letter/ order has been passed by the authorities, the stale claim will not get revived. Reference for the purpose can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, 2013(6) SLR 629, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. 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. Such as an order promoting a junior should normally be challenged within a period of six months or at the most in a year of such promotion. Though it is not a strict rule, the courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused on account of delay and laches. Any VARINDER SINGH 2015.01.20 10:33 CWP No. 80 of 2015 (3) I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh one who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee who sleeps like Rip Van Winkle and gets up from slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 387 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next