Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Nirmalaben Laxmishankar Sompura vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 4 December, 2018 cites

Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors on 2 September, 2009

11. Learned Advocate Shri Karia has emphasized regarding the propriety of exercise of such powers beyond a reasonable period contending that it would not justify exercise of such power beyond a reasonable period as observed and laid down in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 as well as the judgment of Page 8 of 17 C/SCA/13007/2012 JUDGMENT the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (9) SCC 353 in case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. Referring to the observations made in this judgment including the judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., which in turn has referred to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 and also referred to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyer (3rd Edition, 2005) emphasizing that;
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 168 - Full Document

Collector And Ors. Etc vs P. Mangamma And Ors. Etc on 28 February, 2003

11. Learned Advocate Shri Karia has emphasized regarding the propriety of exercise of such powers beyond a reasonable period contending that it would not justify exercise of such power beyond a reasonable period as observed and laid down in catena of judicial pronouncements including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 2 GLR 1788 as well as the judgment of Page 8 of 17 C/SCA/13007/2012 JUDGMENT the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (9) SCC 353 in case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Ors. v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors. Referring to the observations made in this judgment including the judgment reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1788 in case of Chandulal Gordhandas Ranodriya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., which in turn has referred to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector and others v. P. Mangamma and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 488 and also referred to the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyer (3rd Edition, 2005) emphasizing that;
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 78 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 25 February, 2014

23. As discussed above, the suo motu exercise of powers is beyond the period of three years. As stated above, in the present case it is after 7 years and / or 9 years or 12 years, which would not justify exercise of such power. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gohil Jesangbhai Raysangbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Another (supra). Moreover, as submitted and contended by learned Advocate Shri Bhargav Karia, the petitioner was having the status of agriculturist vide Entry No. 2684 since 1982 which has not been cancelled. This aspect does not seem to have been considered though the matter was remanded earlier by the High Court. Further, as discussed above, the aspect of delay in exercise of power and reasonable period has to be considered in light of the settled legal position.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 52 - H L Gokhale - Full Document
1