Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen cannot be said to have been waived by a citizen for remaining silent for long time more particularly when the State has failed in its constitutional obligation to follow the process of land acquisition before taking over the private property of a citizen.”
The grievance of the petitioner Bank is that notwithstanding the favourable order dated 29-06-2022, the adverse remarks recorded in the order dated 04-06-2022 continue to cause irreparable harm to the petitioner Bank’s reputation and interests.
“Delay by the authorities, at times, may constitute a cause of action in itself. This would be especially true in a case of a live and continuing cause of action or in the event of failure to perform a mandatory statutory duty. It is, however, equally true that there can be cases where delay and laches would be fatal and can result in the dismissal of the writ petition.”
“A duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
The Court found that insofar as Section 406, IPC was concerned, no cognizable offence was visible on the face of the record. Furthermore, charges under S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out either, against the appellants
,
The Delhi High Court said that the issuance of a commitment letter does not make the issuer a ‘bidder’ in the tender process.
Since the Petitioner made an inexplicable delay in filing the petition for reallocation of land by DDA after receiving license fee, the petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches.
Calcutta High Court held that the Municipality’s possession without proper acquisition procedures is deemed illegal, and the State is directed to initiate proceedings and pay compensation.
“A claim may not be barred by limitation. It is the remedy for realisation of the claim, which gets barred by limitation.”
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and J M Khazi, JJ. dismissed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that merely because a long period has lapsed by
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and PS Narsimha, JJ was posed with the question as
Supreme Court: In a case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had condoned a delay of 1011 days even though no sufficient
Supreme Court: Explaining the difference between acquiescence and delay and laches, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Puneet Gupta, JJ., dismissed the application seeking suspension of
“The State of Madhya Pradesh continues to do the same thing again and again and the conduct seems to be incorrigible!”
“The Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed.”
Supreme Court: In an application filed by State of Odisha, seeking condonation of delay of 587 days, the 3-judge bench of SK
Supreme Court: In a case where, for the enormous delay of 1697 days in filing, the Government said that there was a