Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The University of Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1988
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 10F in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Karamchand Thappar And Bros. on 9 October, 1964
It is only when the petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain the delay that the Court would refuse to interfere. It is a self-imposed limitation on the exercise of discretionary powers, namely, even when there is no specific limitation, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionaly powers where the petitioner is guilty of latches or undue delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation. Delay is not an absolute bar for dismissing the petition. Petitioner is not to be dismissed where the delay is explained (See The State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Karamchand Thappar and Bros., AIR 1965 SC 913).
The Companies Act, 1956
Santosh Dev vs Archna Guha on 3 February, 1994
Petition is also not required to be dismissed where the delay has been explained by the party raising the ground of delay (See Santosh De v. Archana Guha, AIR 1994 SC 1229).
1