Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Chandola, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents is dispensed with.
3. The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
Application for mutation – Condonation of delay - The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is a....
The court established that revisional authority cannot interfere with interlocutory orders lacking sufficient reasoning, emphasizing the need for a reasoned decision.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and not denying p....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
