Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar[2], this Court, after
referring to C. Jacob (supra) 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.
State Of Orissa vs Pyarimohan Samantaray And Ors. on 3 November, 1976
In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray[4] it has been opined that
making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation
of delay.
State Of Orissa Etc vs Arun Kumar Patnaik & Anr. Etc on 15 April, 1976
The said principle was reiterated in State of Orissa v.
Arun Kumar Patnaik[5].
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Ghanshyam Dass & Ors on 17 February, 2011
In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others[6], a
three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana[7] and proceeded to observe that as
the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and
approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the
order dated 7.7.1992.
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others[6], a
three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana[7] and proceeded to observe that as
the respondents therein preferred to sleep over their rights and
approached the tribunal in 1997, they would not get the benefit of the
order dated 7.7.1992.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Seshachalam on 18 September, 2007
In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam[8], this Court, testing the equality
clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of
service benefit, has ruled thus: -
Ghulam Rasool Lone vs State Of J & K & Ors on 16 July, 2009
19. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is
based on the concept of equality and equitability, but the said relief
has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has
been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
another[9].
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others[10], the Court
has opined that though there is no period of limitation provided for
filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable
time. In the said case the respondents had filed the writ petition
after seventeen years and the court, as stated earlier, took note of
the delay and laches as relevant factors and set aside the order
passed by the High Court which had exercised the discretionary
jurisdiction.
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
21. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge
Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu[11],
wherein it has been laid down that a person aggrieved by an order of
promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least
within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not
that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise
their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a
case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage
of a certain length of time, but it would be a sound and wise exercise
of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary
powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it
expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen
and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to
unsettle settled matters.