Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.56 seconds)
Additional District Judge-01 (South ... vs All India Blind Relief Society on 26 October, 2018 cites

Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy on 26 February, 1970

12. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by the     RCA - 25/18            Jasmeet Singh Vs. All India Blind Relief Society           Pg. 9 of 13 parties, the law on the subject as has been discussed and settled in the case of Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 1970SCR(3)830, Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai 1991 AIR 993, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta AIR 2005 SCW 4645 and most recently in Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs Raj Nath Dubey & Ors.{ Civil Appeal Nos.4083-4084 of 2016 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.12915-12916 of 2014}.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 289 - J C Shah - Full Document

Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990

12. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by the     RCA - 25/18            Jasmeet Singh Vs. All India Blind Relief Society           Pg. 9 of 13 parties, the law on the subject as has been discussed and settled in the case of Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 1970SCR(3)830, Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai 1991 AIR 993, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta AIR 2005 SCW 4645 and most recently in Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs Raj Nath Dubey & Ors.{ Civil Appeal Nos.4083-4084 of 2016 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.12915-12916 of 2014}.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 117 - M H Kania - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Pramod Gupta (D) By L.Rs. And Ors. on 7 September, 2005

12. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by the     RCA - 25/18            Jasmeet Singh Vs. All India Blind Relief Society           Pg. 9 of 13 parties, the law on the subject as has been discussed and settled in the case of Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 1970SCR(3)830, Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai 1991 AIR 993, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta AIR 2005 SCW 4645 and most recently in Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs Raj Nath Dubey & Ors.{ Civil Appeal Nos.4083-4084 of 2016 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.12915-12916 of 2014}.
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 126 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Basawaraj vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 May, 2008

5. So far as application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is concerned, there is delay of 160 days in filing the appeal, which has been cogently explained on the grounds that the son of the appellant is suffering from moderate mental retardation and has been declared 75% permanently disabled and also that appellant is himself suffering from various illnesses. The averments are supported by copies of medical records of the son of the appellant issued by National Institute of Mental Health Centre as well as his medical record issued by AIIMS Hospital. Law is settled that Court should be liberal in granting condonation of delay in filing appeal if sufficient and bonafide reasons to the satisfaction of the Court are advanced. It has been held by the Apex Court in para 11 in the case of Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 297 - H G Ramesh - Full Document

Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002

should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide     RCA - 25/18            Jasmeet Singh Vs. All India Blind Relief Society           Pg. 4 of 13 Madanlal v. Shyamlal - (2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100 and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao - (2002) 3 SCC 195 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 822 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next