Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006
In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. K. Thangappan & Anr.[6]
this Court had held thus that delay or laches is one of the factors which
is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an
appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary
powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant
to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and
other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party.
Durga Prashad vs Chief Controller Of Imports & Exports & ... on 22 November, 1968
Even where
fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of
the Court as pointed out in Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports (AIR 1970 SC 769). Of course, the discretion has to be exercised
judicially and reasonably.
City & Industrial Devt.Corp vs Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors on 14 November, 2008
In City Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir
Bhiwandiwala & Ors.[7] this Court has opined that one of the grounds for
refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of
unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for
a Writ is an adequate ground for refusing a Writ. The principle is that
courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of
stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may
have accrued in the interregnum.
Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2006
In this
context we may refer with profit to the decision in Indu Shekhar Singh &
Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.[8] wherein it has been held thus: -
Public Service ... vs Mamta Bisht And Ors on 3 June, 2010
In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & Ors.[9]
this Court while dealing with the concept of necessary parties and the
effect of non-impleadment of such a party in the matter when the selection
process is assailed observed thus: -
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962
In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the
Court has explained the distinction between necessary party,
proper party and proforma party and further held that if a
person who is likely to suffer from the order of the Court and
has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said
order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice. More so, proviso to Order I, Rule IX of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called CPC) provide that
non-joinder of necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly,
provisions of CPC are not applicable in writ jurisdiction by
virtue of the provision of Section 141, CPC but the principles
enshrined therein are applicable.
K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997
In K.C. Sharma (supra) the factual
scenario was absolutely different and thus, distinguishable.