SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 1243

A.S.ANAND, B.N.KIRPAL, K.VENKATASWAMI, S.P.BHARUCHA, S.R.BABU
State (Cbi) /s. P. E. – Appellant
Versus
P. V. Narasimha Rao – Respondent


Judgment

A. S. ANAND, JJ.

( 1 ) THERE is an inordinate delay of 179 days in filing these review petitions. The application seeking condo-nation of delay is vague, indefinite and contains no reasonable or satisfactory explanation. That the delay has occurred because of "paucity of staff, is hardly an explanation for seeking condo-nation of such an inordinate delay. The application seeking condo-nation of delay is; therefore, rejected. Consequently, the review petitions shall stand dismissed, as barred by time.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top