Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Union Of India vs Chaman Rana on 12 March, 2018
15. The aforesaid view was followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Chaman Rana 2018 (5) SCC 798.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009
10. The issue regarding decision of a claim on a direction by the Court on the representation filed by a writ petitioner was also considered in Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar 2010(2) SCC 59, wherein it was held that the issue of limitation or delay and laches is to be considered with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to an order passed in compliance to Court's direction. The Court's direction to consider representation or a decision given in compliance thereof, will not extend the limitation or erase the delay and laches.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Ghanshyam Dass & Ors on 17 February, 2011
In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass (2) and others, (2011) 4 SCC 374, a three-Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the principle stated in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1977) 6 SCC 538 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, (2007) 10 SCC 137, this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus:-
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and others, (2007) 9 SCC 278, 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, (1975) 1 SCC 152, 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 the 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.
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T. T. Murali Babu 2014 (4) SCC 108, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under:-
Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968
In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others, AIR 1969 SC 329, the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is as follows:-