Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 November, 1978
In Shri. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Apex Court has held, whether a relief should be granted is a matter of sound judicial discretion governed by the doctrine of laches. It has further held that it is appropriate ordinarily to consider that an unexplained delay in filing the writ petition after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit is unreasonable. But, however, opined that this Rule cannot be a rigid form and held that there may be cases where even delay of a shorter period may be considered to be sufficient to refuse relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case, the appellant had made excess payment on being assessed by the Department and such payment cannot be treated as voluntary payment precluding him from recovering them. There, the Court did not find anything wrong in the conduct of the appellant to disentitle him to claim the refund of excess payment made in respect of the goods other than wired glass. In such a situation, the Court held, to resort to alternative remedy of second appeal is no bar.
Haryana State Electricity Board vs State Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors. on 17 April, 1972
16. Haryana State Electricity Board v. The State of Punjab & Haryana and Ors. is a case where refixing the seniority of a Government servant was involved, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In such a situation, when the petitioners kept on making representations and moving the appropriate authorities at all stages, the delay was put against them. In that context, the Apex Court held that it was not a case where relief could be declined on ground of delay and laches.
P. C. Sethi & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 January, 1975
In P. C. Sethi and Ors. v. Union of lndia and Ors. (1975-I- LLJ-520)(SC), in view of the hopes held out by the Government from time to time, delay and laches were not considered against the petitioners. It is not the same situation in the instant case.
Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company ... vs District Board Bhojpur And Ors on 12 March, 1992
In Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur and Ors. , the Apex Court has taken a view that to enquire into a belated and stale claim is not a rule of taw but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case depends on its own facts on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed and how the delay arose etc. If an illegality is manifest it cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. But, when there is no reasonable explanation for the delay and the petitioner kept quiet for a considerable time without questioning the order and that too, when there is no right and the appointment being contractual, removal after enquiry after a report cannot be considered that it is not based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. In such a case, there is nothing like illegality manifest in the order of termination. In such a situation, the delay assumes all the importance and the case cited has no application.
Smt. Sudama Devi vs Commissioner And Ors. on 14 January, 1983
20. Smt. Sudama Devi v. The Commissioner and Ors. was a case where the writ petition filed after expiry of 90 days was rejected by the High Court. The Apex Court held that it was not proper. That case has no application to the case on hand.
Rameshwarlal vs Municipal Council, Tonk & Ors on 27 August, 1996
21. Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council Tonk and Ors. is a case where it was held that the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court, and the Supreme Court, diligently and bona fide, by needs to be excluded. That decision has no application to the case on hand.
West Bengal State Electricity Board & ... vs Desh Bandhu Ghosh And Ors on 26 February, 1985
22. West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh and Ors. (1985-I-LLJ-373) (SC) was a case of a permanent employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board, who was unjustly and arbitrarily removed from service and the regulation was in question on the ground of arbitrariness and of vicious discrimination. That is not the fact situation in the instant case.
Shri Bhagwan And Anr vs Ram Chand And Anr on 1 March, 1965
In Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr. v. Ram Chand and Anr. , it has been held that it is hardly necessary to emphasise that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of. the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. Court declined to grant the relief. It may, perhaps, be the respondent might have been misdirected in regard to the remedies which he should have adopted. But, what stares one in the face is that it was for the first time in 1984 that he invoked the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court, under Article 226, challenging the legality of the order passed in 1975 and it is in this back-ground that the petition filed after gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation, was rejected. The learned single Judge has lost sight of this fact. The conduct of the respondent was, therefore, such which disentitles him for any relief.