Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.37 seconds)Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs vs Exe.Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Anr on 3 November, 2008
In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the order of the High Court condoning the delay of 1724 days in preferring an appeal by the State under Section 54 of the Act against the enhancement of compensation by the reference court and held as under:
Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu And Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others on 27 February, 2002
In the case of Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the order of the High Court and rejected the application for condonation of delay of five and a half years in filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court on the ground of illness of one of the appellant and after referring to the judgments in the case of Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; Lala Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v. Veena @ Bharti (2011) 3 SCC 545, and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) (1) SCC 535; and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 195, Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 510; Rajendar Singh & Ors. v. Santa Singh & Ors., (1973) 2 SCC 705, Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448, upheld the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the Civil Appeal observing in paras-14 & 15 as under:
Union Of India & Anr vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc on 16 May, 1989
This principle of law is a judicially en-grafted principle and is binding in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and another (supra) and the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs (supra). This squarely concludes the question No.(i). Therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted to take impetus of the judgment passed at the behest of some diligent person. The first appeals filed by the appellants after an inordinate delay of about 28 years on the ground of some judgment of the High Court awarding higher compensation, are not entertainable. Thus question No.(i) is answered accordingly.
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rup Diamonds & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 January, 1989
In Rup Diamonds Vs. Union of India, 1989 (2) SCC 356, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case where the petitioner wanted to get the relief on the basis of the judgment in another case wherein a particular law had been declared ultravires. Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches observing as under:
Ch. Khazan Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 3 December, 1973
7. Question No.(i) Whether determination of compensation by the High Court @ Rs.297/- per square yard in the case of Khazan and others Vs. State of U.P. in First Appeal No.564 of 1997, relating to much subsequent acquisitions and of an entirely different village/ locality, can furnish a ground for condonation of delay of about 28 years under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?