Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, 137 AIR 1987

By

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji Case Summary 1987

Introduction 

This  landmark judgement have explained the scope of Section 5, Limitation act ,1963 and inclusion of Government as a party to claim Condonation of delay.

Facts 

  • State of J&k appealed against the order of the HC by which the compensation, which had to be made for acquisition of land for public purpose, was enhanced. 
  • However this appeal was rejected by the court due to delay of 4 days.
  • Hence, State of J&K went to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136.

Issue Involved

  1. On what ground, the court can condone the delay of an appeal ?
  2. Whether the law differs to 'Condone the delay' in case of State and Private Party ? 

Ratio Decidendi

Issue 1

  1. The legislature has provided the power to condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  2. Section 5 of the limitation act says : 
    • Any appeal or an application
    • Other than an application made under Order XXI of the CPC, 1908.
    • May be admitted
    • After the prescribed period
    • If the appellant or the applicant
    • Satisfies the court 
    • About 'Sufficient Cause' 
    • For not preferring the appeal on such period.
  3. Under Section 5 "Sufficient Cause" enables the court to apply law in a meaningful manner which serves the end of justice.
  4. There are following things to care under  Section 5 : 
    • Every days delay must be explained to condone the delay however it does not mean that every hour delay or every second delay.
    • This section applies in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner.
    • 'Sufficient cause' needed to condone the delay.
    • Whenever conflict arises between substantial/complete justice and technical consideration then 'Substantial justice' will be preferred.
    • Delay must not cause deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafide.
Issue 2
  1. As per the 'Doctrine of Equality' all litigant including the state as litigant gets same treatment before law 
  2. Therefore, in the present case  'State' which was seeking condonation is equal before law.

Judgment 

  1. Hence, the appeal is allowed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more