Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Taibai W/O Chandrashekhar Gaurkar And ... vs Budhaji S/O Yerraji Madavi on 22 January, 2020 cites

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

14. Thus, the applicants in the present case need to demonstrate that the discretion positively exercised by the Appellate Court in these cases could be said wholly unsustainable, arbitrary or perverse. This shows that the applicants have to pass a tough test to be able to convince this Court to upset the KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:11 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 14/17 orders passed by the Appellate Court in favour of the respondents while condoning delay. A perusal of the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Appellate Court shows that emphasis has been placed on the aspect that the respondents are poor and illiterate and that they have nothing to gain by delaying filing of appeals before the Appellate Court, in order to have the decrees set aside. Reference has been made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012

12. While emphasizing that the respondents had made false statements in their applications for condonation of delay and that they had not approached the Appellate Court with clean hands, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, apart from relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Isha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee, Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and other (supra), Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through LRs, (supra) Salil Dutta v. T.M. And M. C. Private Ltd. (supra), also relied upon order of this Court in the case of Kanta alias Shanti w/o Subhash Karkale v. Manjulabai alias Kholki w/o Haribhau Tarare and anr. (supra). A perusal of the said judgments would show that applications for condonation of delay are expected to be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner and further that the Courts are not supposed to deal with the applications for condonation of delay in a routine manner. It has been been further held that although no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1056 - Full Document

M.K. Prasad vs P.Arumugam on 30 July, 2001

6. On the other hand, Advocate Mr. V.N. Morande and Advocate Mr. A.A. Dhawas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the revision applications, submitted that the statements made in the applications for condonation of delay were based on correct facts and since the respondents were illiterate persons, they were unable to realize the consequences of the decrees passed against them and it was only when the decrees were put to execution and notices were received by the respondents from the Executing Court that they rushed to the Appellate Court to file the appeals along with applications for condonation of delay. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that false statements were made on behalf of the respondents before the Appellate Court. The KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:11 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 6/17 learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the law of limitation was not meant to destroy the rights of parties and that if a plausible explanation was given on behalf of the applicants seeking condonation of delay, the Court would exercise jurisdiction to condone delay so as to ensure that the dispute between the parties was resolved on merits. It was further submitted that some appeals arising from identical decrees, which were filed within limitation were now at the stage of final hearing before the Appellate Court and if the appeals filed by the respondents herein were not considered on merits, it would lead to an anomalous situation that in some cases, if the appeals stood allowed, findings would be rendered in favour of persons identically situated like the respondents herein while the decrees would stand confirmed against the respondents if the impugned orders condoning delay were reversed. It was submitted that the subject matter of dispute in all the appeals was the registered gift deed dated 07/02/1948, allegedly executed in favour of the predecessor of the applicants and if it was found by the Appellate Court in the case of other similarly situated persons that the said document was not sustainable, the decrees against the respondents would attain finality despite the very source of title of the applicants being proved unsustainable. On this basis, it was submitted that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction ought not to KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/01/2020 02:19:11 ::: cra19.19+5.odt 7/17 interfere with the impugned orders. It was further submitted that when the Court considering the applications for condonation of delay had exercised discretion in favour of the respondents, this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction may not interfere in the interest of justice, particularly when the applicants had failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error committed by the Appellate Court in allowing the applications for condonation of delay facilitating consideration of appeals of the respondents on merits. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4507 of 2019 in the case of Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 and M.K.Prasad v. P. Arumugam, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2497.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 576 - Full Document
1