Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.73 seconds)
Chief Manager & Anr. vs Rajkumar Manikpuri on 25 March, 2014 cites

Consumer Education & Research Society & ... vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 13 December, 2007

Consumer Education & Research Society & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others, Revision Petition No.2721 of 2007 decided by the National Commission on 13.12.2007; Smt. Sharda D. // 3 // Kamble & Anr. v Dr. Shanti Kumar Chivade, First Appeal No.436 of 2005 decided by the National Commission on 25th January, 2008.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Manindra Land And Buildingcorporation ... vs Bhutnath Banerjee And Others on 2 May, 1963

embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 : (2011 AIR SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal // 6 // Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629 : (2012 AIR SCW 2412.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 468 - R Dayal - Full Document

Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011

embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 : (2011 AIR SEW 1233); and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal // 6 // Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629 : (2012 AIR SCW 2412.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 594 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd vs South Indian Corpn. (Agencies) ... on 21 July, 2009

M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3222; E.I.C.M. Exports Ltd. v. South Indian Corpn. (Agencies) Ltd. & Another [2011] 7 RCR (Civ) 32/[2009] 14 SCC 412 / [2009] 10 Scale 22 / [2009] 0 AIR (SC) 3127 / [2009] 7 SCJ 410 / [2009] 7 MLJ (SC) 518 / [2009] 3 CPJ (SC) 73 / [2009] 6 AIILJ 458 / [2009] 16 JT 425; National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Dilbagh Rai Sharma, I (2005) CPJ 355 decided on 28.07.2004 by Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Shri R.K. Aggarwal vs Cce, Noida on 3 September, 2009

4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts / Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute(s).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next