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

1995 Supreme(Raj) 281

B.J.SHETHNA
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
KESHAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MAHENDRA TRIVEDI, N.P.Gupta, Prakash Tatia

Judgment


B. J. SHETHNA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) ALL these four applications for condonation of delay are being disposed of by this common order as they are filed in appeals arising out of the common judgment passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara on 20th October, 1993. There is a delay of 16 days. The ground which is sought to be made out for condoning the delay is of administrative exigencies. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, reported in 1994 (6) JT (SC) 372, Mr. Gupta submitted that the delay be condoned.

( 3 ) THERE is no straight jacket formula for condoning the delay in all cases on the ground of administrative exigencies. First of all, the case has to be made out for the same and delay has to be explained by making out a sufficient cause for condoning the same. The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh would not apply to the facts of this case. The facts of that case were peculiar. In that case, the father of the petitioner who was serving as Sub-Inspector or, CID (Special Branch) died while on duty. His son applied to the State for appointing








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