Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
The judgment in P.C. Bahl v. Union of India and Ors. 1968 (II) SLR 291 also does not refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. , and the case was decided on its peculiar features.
Rabindranath Bose And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 October, 1969
16. Then there is the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rabindranath Bose and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. 1970 SLR 330. It was a case in which the seniority list was prepared on August 1, 1953, under the rules of 1952, and it was challenged by a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution some 15 years thereafter. It was held by their Lordships that they could not be expected to go into stale demands after a lapse of years. The following observations of their Lordships bear directly on the controversy in the present case:
Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Anr vs State Of Mysore And Anr on 7 November, 1966
17. The only other case which I may refer in this connection is K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 993 In that case the petition was filed after about 13 years, and it was brought to the notice of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Chief Engineer had espoused the case of the petitioners and was writing letters to the State Government from time to time to redress their grievances Even so, their Lordships held that the petitioners were guilty of laches.
Sat Pal Sharma And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 March, 1968
19. I have considered the cases cited on behalf of the petitioners, but they are all clearly distinguishable. Thus in Sat Pal Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab 1968 (II) SLR 848 there was some delay in filing the writ petition. The views of their Lordships of the Supreme Court were not, however, brought to the notice of their Lordships of the Punjab and Hariyana High Court. Even so, they observed that if the learned Single Judge, against whose judgment they were hearing the appeal, had dismissed the petition merely on the ground of delay, they would have declined to go into the merits of the controversy.
Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968
15. I may next refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Tilokchand and Motichand and Ors. v. H.B. Munshi and Anr. 1969 (I) SCC 116, in which a reference was made to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. and it was held that the party claiming Fundamental Rights must move the court before other rights come into existence and that the action of courts cannot harm innocent parties "if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court". It has further been held that the petition should be moved with utmost expedition, at the earliest possible time, and the petitioner should explain satisfactory all semblance of delay.
1