Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj v. Land
Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, dealt with the
expression sufficient cause as provided under Section 5 of
the Act and held that the said expression must be construed
liberally in order to advance justice and delays in preferring
appeals maybe condoned in the interest of justice, where no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides
is imputable to the party seeking such relief. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced herein below:-
Madanlal vs Shyamlal on 9 November, 2001
The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation
to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence,
inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concerned,
whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on
the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
(Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal, [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100]
and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002
SC 1201] .)
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation
to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence,
inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concerned,
whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on
the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
(Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal, [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100]
and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002
SC 1201] .)
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
48. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity
and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired
in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have
been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches.
(See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn., [(2005)
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 11 of 20
7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, [(1973) 2 SCC
705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon
Medium Project, [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
907] .)
Rajender Singh & Ors vs Santa Singh & Ors on 16 August, 1973
48. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity
and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired
in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have
been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches.
(See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn., [(2005)
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 11 of 20
7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, [(1973) 2 SCC
705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon
Medium Project, [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
907] .)
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008
48. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity
and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents
disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired
in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have
been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches.
(See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn., [(2005)
RCA DJ No. 77/2025 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma vs. Balraj Bhardwaj @ Sartaj Ahmad Page No. 11 of 20
7 SCC 510], Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh, [(1973) 2 SCC
705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon
Medium Project, [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
907] .)