Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.23 seconds)Ayappa Naicker vs Subbammal And Anr. on 25 August, 1982
9.The issue in the said judgment was by reference to the Bench, in view of the
conflicting decisions in Ayappa Naicker Vs Subbammal and another and
Subramaniya Mudali Vs Srinivasa Pillai. There was a divergent view as to the
applicability of the Limitation Act under Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code. The
Bench after considering the various aspects, had held that the omission of applicability
of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the new Civil Procedure Code is patently express
and therefore, it was held that there was an inconsistency and hence, it was the view of
the Division Bench that the Court cannot exercise its power to excuse the delay in filing
an application under Order XXI Rule 106 Civil Procedure Code, since the period is
fixed by the statute.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996
16.The above position was highlighted in State of Haryana
v. Chandra Mani[(1996) 3 SCC 132] andSpecial Tehsildar, Land
Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma [(1996) 10 SCC 634] . It was noted that
adoption of strict standard of proof sometimes fails to protract (sic)
public justice, and it would result in public mischief by skilful
management of delay in the process of filing an appeal.”
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
14.No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the
High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a
party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of
laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the
event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay
should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying
the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained
on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical
considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial
justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have
a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate
delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have
in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. (Vide Durga
Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1 SCC
185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] , Collector (LA) v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107 :
G. Subramania Mudali vs Srinivasa Pillai And Anr. on 2 April, 1979
9.The issue in the said judgment was by reference to the Bench, in view of the
conflicting decisions in Ayappa Naicker Vs Subbammal and another and
Subramaniya Mudali Vs Srinivasa Pillai. There was a divergent view as to the
applicability of the Limitation Act under Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code. The
Bench after considering the various aspects, had held that the omission of applicability
of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the new Civil Procedure Code is patently express
and therefore, it was held that there was an inconsistency and hence, it was the view of
the Division Bench that the Court cannot exercise its power to excuse the delay in filing
an application under Order XXI Rule 106 Civil Procedure Code, since the period is
fixed by the statute.
Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975
G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988
2.G.Ramegowda, Major & Others Vs Special Land Acquisition
Officer reported in (1988) 2 SCC 142.
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
4.State of Nagaland Vs Lipok Ao & Others reported in (2005) 3
SCC 752.