Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
Sri. Prabhakar vs Joint Director Sericulture Department on 7 September, 2015 cites

Raghubir Singh vs Gen.Manager,Haryana Roadways,Hissar on 3 September, 2014

25) In Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar 16, this Court scanned through most of the available case law on the subject and emphasized that the words 'at any time' occurring in Section 10 of the Act would imply that law of limitation did not apply. On facts, the Court held that the State Government had rightly exercised its power and referred the dispute to Labour Court within reasonable time considering circumstances in which the appellant therein was placed. In fact, the Court accepted the explanation for delay given by the workman 16 (2014) 10 SCC 301 22 in raising the dispute. In that case, it was found that there was a criminal case pending against the workman and further the Management had assured him that he would be reinstated on his acquittal. It was also noticed that even despite delay, there was no loss or unavailability of evidence due to the said delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 315 - Full Document

Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs K.P. Madhavankutty And Ors on 28 January, 2000

23) In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors.14, the Court cautioned that power of reference should be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner and not in a mechanical fashion. It was specifically observed that power to make reference cannot be exercised to revive 13 (1964) 1 LLJ 622 14 (2000) 2 SCC 455 18 settled matters or to refer stale disputes in spite of absence of statutory limitation period. The Court not only reiterated that the courts had power of judicial review, though to limited extent, but also made following pertinent observations on delay:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 553 - Full Document
1   2 Next