Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.46 seconds)Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, reported in
1987(2) SCC 107, the Honourable Supreme Court said that when
substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other,
cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side
13/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 03:50:14 pm )
C.M.P.Nos.17783 & 17784 of 2024 in
WA.SR.Nos.106444 &105450 of 2024
cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non
deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on
account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because
it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997
In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, reported
in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to
observe as under:
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
In the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari,
reported, AIR 1969 SC 575, a three Judge Bench of the Court said that
unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a
party of the protection, the application must not be thrown out or any delay
cannot be refused to be condoned.
H.H. Brij Indar Singh vs Lala Kanshi Ram on 19 July, 1917
22. The Privy Council, in the case of Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi
Ram reported in ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94, observed that true guide for a
court to exercise the discretion is whether the appellants acted with
reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeals.
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
This principle still holds
16/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/02/2026 03:50:14 pm )
C.M.P.Nos.17783 & 17784 of 2024 in
WA.SR.Nos.106444 &105450 of 2024
good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly
been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and
others, AIR 2005 SC 2191.
Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil And Ors on 20 July, 2001
In the case of Vedabai @ Vijayanatabai Baburao Vs.
Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 608,
the Court said that under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it should adopt a
pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the
delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the
former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant
factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no
such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach.
No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the basic guiding
factor is advancement of substantial justice.
1