Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)
Sushil Singla vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 11 February, 2026 cites

Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. ... vs Ram Gopal on 30 January, 2020

12. It is trite law that the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be condoned if sufficient cause is indicated or a reasonable explanation is provided for the same. However, the facts of the matter at hand indicate otherwise. Learned counsel petitioner has failed to specify any compelling or extenuating circumstance which prevented him/her from approaching this Court for such a long time. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and Others vs. Ram Gopal (2021) 13 SCC 225, wherein, the following was held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 79 - S A Bobde - Full Document

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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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

Shrimati Krishna Kumari vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 18 May, 1994

8. This Court in Shrimati Krishna Kumari v. State of Punjab 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 13-02-2026 00:56:00 ::: CWP-20207-2016 -4- 1994(4) SCT 22 made the following observations in this regard, "Government's intention in not granting house rent allowance where one of the spouses is allotted Government accommodation is that when a govt. employee is allotted accommodation he is expected to live in that accommodation with his family. He/She is not expected to live in a separate house.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1