Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
A court knows that refusal to condone delay
would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his
cause. There is no presumption that delay in
approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court
has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section
5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice vide
Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC
575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator,
Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
9. Learned senior counsel relied on the decision in
N.BALAKRISHNAN's case (1 supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has laid down the principles on applications filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and
held at paragraphs 9 and to 13 as under:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
A court knows that refusal to condone delay
would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his
cause. There is no presumption that delay in
approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court
has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section
5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice vide
Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC
575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator,
Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749].
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
ESHA BHATTACHARJEE v. MANAGING
COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR
ACADEMY AND OTHERS3
iv. R.KRISHNA KISTAIAH v. R.BALA NARSAIAH
DIED) PER LRs AND OTHERS4
v. ROBIN THAPA v. ROHIT DORA5
1