Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)
Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs Amrut Kisan Kalukhe @ Amrut Sarjerao ... on 1 April, 2005 cites

Ajit Singh Thakur Singh And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 9 January, 1981

7. As mentioned earlier, reliance was placed on the decision of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh (supra). However, that decision is of no avail to the Respondents. The submission clearly overlooks the position that the Applicant has given sufficient cause for its inability to file revision applications before the limitation period, inasmuch as the Applicant had no knowledge about the order having been passed by the lower Court till November 2000. Taking overall view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in the peculiar facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 140 - Full Document

G. Ramegowda, Major, Etc vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 10 March, 1988

5. Having considered the rival submissions, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the explanation offered by the Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the revision applications deserves to be accepted, being sufficient cause in the light of the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in (1988) 2 S.C.C. 142. This is so because it is stated on affidavit by the Applicant that they had no knowledge about the judgment rendered by the lower Court till November 2000. That fact was, however, disputed by the Respondents by contending that the said assertion is devoid of merits and is only a smokescreen. However, it is not possible assume certain fact so as to to contradict the position stated by the Applicant on affidavit. At least, there is nothing on record to show that the Applicant was informed by any authority or person about the order passed by the Magistrate till November 2000. After receipt of the communication in November 2000, as mentioned earlier, immediate steps have been taken by the Applicant. May be that the Applicant approached different authorities instead of taking recourse to directly availing of the remedy before this Court, which they were otherwise entitled to in law. That, however, is matter of perception and there is no reason to doubt the bona fides of the officers of the Applicant who were interacting with different authorities to persuade the State to file appeal against acquittal. Besides, it is stated on affidavit by the Applicant that the Applicant have communicated to the Director of Public Prosecution to take appropriate action against the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor for not informing about the order passed as back as in January 1999. However, what steps have been taken pursuant to that communication has not been placed on record. The learned A.P.P., appearing for the State, is not in a position to mention the status of that action. Be that as it may, it is expected that the said proceedings or action will be taken to its logical end by the competent authority, if already not taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 686 - Full Document
1