Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)

O.P. Kathpalia vs Lakhmir Singh (Dead) And Ors. on 23 July, 1984

The aforesaid case of Chandra Mani had considered in detail various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Collector of Land Acquisition v. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107; O.P. Katpalia v. Lakhmir Singh, 1984 (4) SCC 66; Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 Privy Council 156; G. Rame Gowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1988(2) SCC 142 and host of other judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 235 - D A Desai - Full Document

Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994

13. Learned Counsel for the respondents herein, has strenuously contended that unless there is an error apparent on the fact of the record which strikes one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn reasoning, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to seek review cannot be invoked. Our attention has been drawn in this respect to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995( 1) SCC 170, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 635 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996

5. Before we proceed to deal with R.A., we would like to deal with the M.A. first. We have heard learned Counsel for parties at length on M.A. No. 384/02. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to 1996(3) SCC 132, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid delay, which is not intentional and is bona fide, deserves to be condoned. It would be relevant to quote para 11 of the said judgment which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 754 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next