Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (0.68 seconds)

Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968

47. Hidayatullah, C.J. who agreed with Bachawat and Mitter, JJ. in Tilokchand case {(1969) 1 SCC 110 } noted that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and proceeded to observe: (SCC p. 116, para 11) "11. Therefore, the question is one of discretion for this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought within the Limitation Act by reason of some article but this Court need not necessarily give the total time to the litigant to move this Court under Article 32. Similarly in a suitable case this Court may entertain such a petition even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are when and how the delay arose."
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 562 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court (AIR 1967 1450) and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India { (1992) 3 SCC 136}.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 829 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next