Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.72 seconds)P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997
Still in a more recent case titled as P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1997(6)Scale 209, the Supreme Court reiterated the above principles and declined to condone the delay and held as under:
Section 5 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while heavily relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. contended that the power to condone the delay has been conferred to do substantial justice and the court should adopt a liberal approach and the delay resulting from official procedures should normally be condoned. Firstly, the facts of that case were entirely different as there was a seniority dispute of nearly 150 Inspectors and 400 officers of the rank of Deputy S.P. Secondly, reasons had been stated in detail in that case for condoning the delay.
The Customs Act, 1962
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. wherein the Court held as under:
Collector Of Central Excise, Madras vs A. Md. Bilal And Co. on 22 February, 1999
10. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Tata Yodogawa Ltd.(supra) and A.MD. Bilal & Co. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The application for condensation is without any content, reasonable or satisfactory explanation. It was obligatory upon the part of the applicant-UOI to reasonably explain the delay, may be, by not giving explanation for each day of delay but to explain the delay in a composite manner. In the entire application, no reference of any date, officers and the need for sending the file to any particular section has been stated. This was a case simplicitor for recovery of money of Rs. 3,35,000/- which had been decreed against the authorities and it was held that they were liable to pay interest. It does not appear to be such a complicated issue for determination by the court which would require the UOI or its officers to take years and years to decide whether the appeal should or should not be filed. Then when it is filed after an year, it is incomplete in all respects for which action there is not even a whisper much less an explanation as to why the appeal was kept back for another one year and even the court fee for the appeal was purchased after the lapse of two years from the date of the judgment. This conduct of the applicants is nothing but a negligent attitude and they are taking it to be for granted that the UOI is entitled to claim condensation of delay de hors its averments in the application. For these reasons, we find no merit in these applications and decline to condone the delay and dismiss both these applications.