The Court is not meant to act as a Court of first appeal and cannot supplant its view over that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The detenue specifically alleged that he made a representation against impugned detention order, however, the same was not considered by the detaining authority.
“Public authorities hold the public funds in trust. The public money cannot be allowed to be wasted by unjustified delays caused by the public authorities in discharge of their duties.”
Even though the delay in the instant case was caused due to petitioner’s actions, nevertheless, Lokayukta must complete the investigations within a time frame for a delay may defeat several rights of the petitioner.
Sections 20-A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expresses the legislative intent to not grant injunctions relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction. Thus, the role of Courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public work projects are not impeded or stalled.
In a clinical dissection of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka High Court stated that the victims’ grievances such as maintenance or shelter etc., must be addressed with immediacy, which is why the legislation has mandated a specific time frame.
The Supreme Court was unimpressed with the explanation given by the plaintiff for the delay of 853 days that he initially fell sick with Jaundice and was later confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases. The petition had extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a writ petition filed for claiming compassionate appointment stating that compassionate appointment
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while hearing a bail application of a man accused of raping and impregnating a 14-year-old in
Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, J. opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply in respect
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition directing
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ. took strong exception to the functioning of
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Gaurang Kanth, JJ. dismissed the writ petition as it was filed after
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while adjudicating a bail application which dealt with an unfortunate incident of a girl
Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Anand Pathak, J. allowed a petition which was preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ., reversed the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and held that
Supreme Court: On being apprised of 30 years-long delay in execution of an Arbitration Award, the Division Bench comprising M.R. Shah and
Supreme Court: In a significant case, the 4-judges Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, P.S. Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia,