Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Pawan Gaur vs Vardhman Properties Ltd. on 11 May, 2023 cites

Basawaraj By Lrs Ors vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer on 11 April, 2011

10. In order to condone the delay of eight days, the appellant have to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 315 - Full Document

Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc vs Spl.Land Acquisition Officer And Anr on 22 August, 2013

"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 145 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1