Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N. Balakrishnan vs M. Krishnamurthy on 3 September, 1998
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in N. BALAKRISHNAN
Vs. M. KRISHNAMURTHY reported in (1998) 7 SCC
123 while considering the condonation of delay
where there was negligence on the part of the
Advocate, who was entrusted with the case and
thereby there was delay in filing the application to
set aside the ex-parte decree, has held at paras 9
to 13 as follows :-
Shakuntala Devi Jain vs Kuntal Kumari And Ors. on 5 September, 1968
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay
would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting
forth his cause. There is not presumption that
delay in approaching the court is always
deliberate. This court has held that the words
"sufficient cause" under section 5 of the
Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial
justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal
Kumari and State of W.B v. Administrator
Howrah Municipality.
State Of West Bengal vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality & ... on 14 December, 1971
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay
would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting
forth his cause. There is not presumption that
delay in approaching the court is always
deliberate. This court has held that the words
"sufficient cause" under section 5 of the
Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial
justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal
Kumari and State of W.B v. Administrator
Howrah Municipality.
State Of Uttaranchal & Ors vs Kharak Singh on 13 August, 2008
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision
of STATE OF UTTARANCHAL (supra) to contend that the
Enquiry Officer has no role in suggesting or awarding
punishment and it is for the Disciplinary Authority to impose
appropriate punishment and also to support his contention
that in an enquiry, the Department should take steps to lead
evidence against the workman/delinquent employee and give
19
an opportunity to examine the witnesses of the employee.
Relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 reads as follows:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 94 in Karnataka Education Act, 1983 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Education Act, 1983
A. N. D'Silva vs Union Of India on 6 December, 1961
14. In regard to the question whether an
enquiry officer can indicate the proposed
punishment in his report, this Court, in a series of
decisions has pointed out that it is for the
punishing/disciplinary authority to impose
appropriate punishment and enquiry officer has no
role in awarding punishment. It is useful to refer to
the decision of this Court in A.N.D'Silva vs. Union of
India wherein it was held(AIR p.1134,para 6 )