Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.09 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The General Accident Fire And Life ... vs Janmahomed Abdul Rahim on 17 September, 1940
-6 of 19-
to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Post Master
General & Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Limited & Anr., (supra) has
held at paragraphs 1 to 5 as hereunder:
P.K. Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 September, 1997
11) In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556,
the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of
565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or
satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held
at paragraph-6 as under:
Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar ... on 13 September, 2013
12) While considering the similar issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12
SCC 649, wherein, it has been held as under:
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bherulal on 15 October, 2020
2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case
and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning
again except to record what are stated to be the facts on
which the delay is sought to be condoned.
Chaitram Maywade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2018
On 5-1-2019, it is
stated that the Government Advocate was approached in
respect of the judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 [Chaitram
Maywade v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632] and
the Law Department permitted filing of the SLP against the
impugned order on 26-5-2020. Thus, the Law Department
took almost about 17 months' time to decide whether the
SLP had to be filed or not. What greater certificate of
incompetence would there be for the Legal Department.
Manindra Land And Buildingcorporation ... vs Bhutnath Banerjee And Others on 2 May, 1963
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory
explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the
application for condonation of delay. The court has to
examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a
device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land
and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964
SC 1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 :
Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory
explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the
application for condonation of delay. The court has to
examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a
device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land
and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964
SC 1336] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 :
Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011
AIR 1970 SC 1953] , Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 :