Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)
Lakhmi And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 22 September, 2021 cites

Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through Inspector ... on 26 August, 1982

4. That the appeals in the connected matters have already been filed and has been decided vide judgment dated 16.02.2016 in RFA No.3397 of 2014 titled as Kartar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and others and the appeal filed in the present LAC No.151 by the other claimants namely Ram Singh and Chhote Lal has also been decided on dated 05.04.2016.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 60 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

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 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2021 20:26:55 ::: RFA No.2068 of 2021(O&M) -8- cover an ulterior purpose. (See: 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 AIR 2011 SC 1150;
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 468 - R Dayal - Full Document

Parimal vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011

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 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 23-09-2021 20:26:55 ::: RFA No.2068 of 2021(O&M) -8- cover an ulterior purpose. (See: 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 AIR 2011 SC 1150;
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 594 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Madanlal vs Shyamlal on 9 November, 2001

11. The expression "sufficient cause" 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: Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 182 - Full Document

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

11. The expression "sufficient cause" 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: Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 822 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next