Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
NG CHWEE PING vs LOH SIU YIN - High Court
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 132"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 479"].Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Joint Venture of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises & M/s Megha Eng. & Infr - Delhi
"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4774"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 237"].Specific statutory provisions and rules (e.g., Order 34 Rule 8, Order VIII Rule 1, Section 80 of CPC) govern the timing and manner of filing pleadings and documents, and non-compliance often results in applications for rejection, delay condonation, or reclassification of suits ["
NG CHWEE PING vs LOH SIU YIN - High Court
"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2108"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 479"].Analysis and Conclusion:
Navigating the Indian judicial system can be daunting, especially when it comes to approaching the apex court. One common question litigants ask is: when S.A.O is filed? While S.A.O may refer to specific contexts, it often aligns with inquiries about filing a () under . This extraordinary remedy allows parties to seek the Supreme Court's permission to appeal or tribunal decisions. But timing is critical—file too late, and your petition may be dismissed. In this guide, we'll break down the when, how, and why of filings, drawing from established legal principles and court rules. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
An is a discretionary tool granted by the Supreme Court when a case involves a or a 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124. Unlike regular appeals, it's not a right but a special leave, invoked after exhausting lower remedies. The Supreme Court, under Article 136, can grant permission to appeal any from courts or nationwide 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124.
This remedy corrects or 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124. However, the Court entertains SLPs only if procedural and substantive criteria are met, as per the (as amended) 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124.
SLPs are filed after a or tribunal decision, usually post-exhaustion of other remedies. The key trigger is dissatisfaction with a judgment where no further appeal lies, or where exceptional circumstances warrant Supreme Court intervention.
The filing must occur within a prescribed , generally 60 days from the date 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124. This excludes time for obtaining certified copies, per , incorporated into the rules 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 444.
If filed beyond 60 days without condonation, it's 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124. Courts strictly enforce this, as seen in cases where belated appeals were dismissed for lack of 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3275. For instance, in a dispute under the , appeals were rejected due to non-compliance with deposit conditions and delays, highlighting how belated filing may lead to denial of justice2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3275.
The act of filing happens when the petition is submitted in the prescribed form, with necessary documents like certified copies of the impugned order 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 444. Supreme Court Rules mandate:
Non-compliance, such as missing documents or improper form, leads to rejection 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124. In civil suits, courts have emphasized that documents filed to counter defenses post-plaint must justify timing, underscoring procedural rigor 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 540.
Filing invokes jurisdiction only upon meeting these criteria 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124. In practice, as in Wakf property disputes, suits dismissed for improper forum highlight the need for correct procedural venue 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 762.
Other cases reinforce: Additional issues under allowed despite delay if essential for adjudication 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 540, suggesting flexibility where justice demands, but not a blanket rule for SLPs.
In historical contexts, like appeals requiring court filing and service on respondents, procedural exactitude was paramount
.
Court rulings across domains emphasize timely, proper filing:- Wakf Encroachment: Suits before post-amendment; prior suits dismissed for wrong forum 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 762.- Injunctions and Appeals: Belated applications risk dismissal unless costs paid or merits strong 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 3447.- Probate Delays: 734-day appeals rejected for insufficient reasons 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 1688.
These illustrate that while SLPs offer extraordinary relief, procedural compliance is non-negotiable1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124.
In summary, an is filed when seeking Supreme Court intervention on grave legal issues, but only timely and procedurally sound petitions succeed. Delays or lapses, as in various civil matters, often prove fatal 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3275. For personalized guidance, engage legal experts promptly.
This article references Supreme Court practices and select cases for informational purposes. Laws evolve; verify current rules.
References:- 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 124: Procedural aspects, timing, jurisdiction for SLPs.- 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 444: Limitation Act integration, filing requirements.- Additional cases as cited for contextual insights.
#SLP #SupremeCourtIndia #IndianLaw
Ringkasan kes is not filed yet. ... It is the court's direction that no document to be filed on the trial date. Therefore, the WS was filed out of time. ... the Plaintiff's filed this application on 15 October 2024. ... The Notis Permohonan was filed under O 92 r 4 of ROC 2012. ... Under O 63A r 17, any document filed in the EFS is deemed to be served.
The appellant re-filed the application on 22.02.2019 but that filing was only an index spanning ten pages. The appellant re-filed the application on 23.02.2019 but that too was found to be defective. Finally, the appellant cured the defects and re-filed the application on 25.02.2019. ... The applications under Section 34 of the A&C Act filed on 20.02.2019 and 23.02.2019 were accompanied by signed affidavits. However, the affidavits supporting the application filed on 20.02.2019 were not attested. ... Th....
He does not refer to the petition filed on the 28th of February, 1957. ... Petition of appeal was filed by the defendant's Proctor on the following day, which happened to be a Saturday. No notice of tendering security for costs of appeal was filed in Court on that day. ... It must, therefore, be filed in Court and served on the respondent through the Fiscal. ... This rule is subject only to two qualifications, viz., (1) the Court may, after the notice is duly filed, permit service in some other m....
ROC 2012, it was argued that the WS is to be filed under O 34 r 8 by default seven days before the trial date. Under O 63A r 17, any document filed in the EFS is deemed to be served. ... [17] The Plaintiff has made assumption that the Defendant's WSs were not filed. ... Documents such as Fakta Kes Yang Dipersetujui, Ringkasan Kes were not filed. To make matters worse, the Additional Bundle of Documents 1 and 2 of Part B was filed even though it has never been suggested and served without approval or c....
The application filed on August 19, 2025, according to Mr. Bag learned Advocate, is misconceived and although filed by abundant caution would not be required in the facts of the instant case. ... He further submits that the plaintiff has also filed an application for judgment upon admission and has relied on the written statement which has been filed by the defendant. As such, the plaintiff is now estopped from challenging the acceptance of written statement by the department. ... Admittedly, on August 06, 2025, when lea....
In the present case, the suit was filed in the year 2014 and admittedly, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs is defective and no writ of summon was served upon the defendants. ... No. 5 of 2021 was filed for condonation of 1332 days delay in restoring the company petition which was filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata before the proceedings were transferred to Guwahati Bench of the NCLT. ... A Writ of Summons shall have annexed thereto a copy of the ....
Senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the aforesaid documents are sought to be filed to counter the case set up by the defendant in its written statement and hence, the said documents could not be filed along with the plaint. ... As is evident from the passages set out above, it has specifically been pleaded by the plaintiff that the aforesaid documents are being filed to counter the case set up by the defendant and hence, could not be filed at the time of filing of the suit. ... The documents sought to be #HL_ST....
The parties were having claim and counter claim, the suit which the defendant has filed, the plaintiff has already filed the written statement in the suit but in the present suit, the defendant has not filed the written statement. ... The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,90,29,906.20/-along with interest @ 18% per annum. The defendant had also filed a suit being CS No. 228 of 2014 praying for a decree of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit. .....
The Applicant received the Plaint on 22.05.2025 and the Affidavit of Service was filed on 09.06.2025. Therefore, the Written Statement should have been filed by 08.07.2025, instead the Applicant filed it only on 19.09.2025. ... The Applicant also filed a Common Counter Affidavit on 25.06.2025 in two other application filed in the above suit, which shows that he was capable of verifying the documents. ... Thereafter, the respondent had not filed written statement as contemplated under O....
The petitioner filed the said suit and during pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for impleading the State of Assam represented by the Deputy Collector. ... So, the law postulates that whenever a person intends to file a suit against a Government official or the Government itself, in that case, a notice has to be issued and after expiry of two months after delivery of such notice, the suit can be filed. In the case in hand, the suit is already pending. ....
Meena Muthiah as well as the Society have chosen to seek for a similar relief for injunction in both the suits in C.S. No.198 of 2016 as well as in C.S. No.223 of 2021. No.412 of 2021 has been filed seeking for the very same relief of interim injunction restraining the plaintiff Trust in C.S. No.198 of 2016 and its Trustees from putting up construction in the suit schedule “C” property. Whether it amounts to forum shopping or not as contended by the learned counsels disputing the lease dated 29.10.2015 is a matter of trial and therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to adjudicate the....
The Wakif died without leaving any children, and hence according to the Kokkur Juma Mosque Committee, they alone have the right to manage the property. It is on the above basis that O.S. No. 167 of 2001 has been filed.
7. The learned Single Judge took up for hearing, the application filed by the appellants in A.No.5285 of 2011 and after hearing the learned counsel for either parties and after taking into consideration the materials available on record, was pleased to dismiss the application by an order dated 08.08.2012. Aggrieved by this order, the present O.S.A has been filed.
In fact O.S. No. 483/2011 was filed first in point of time and O.S. No. 427/2011 came to be filed subsequently. In an attempt to show that the defendants are land grabbers and they attempted to grab the suit property in order to coerce the plaintiff to sell the property to them, the plaintiff has chosen to produce certified copies of three sale deeds as Exs.
3. Against the orders passed in the Interlocutory Applications and the E.S.I.O.Ps., the appellant has chosen to file the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. C.M.A.No.659 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.52 of 2008, C.M.A.No.660 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.58 of 2008 in E.S.I.O.P.No.52 of 2008, C.M.A.No.661 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in E.S.I.O.P.No.60 of 2008 and C.M.A.No.662 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in I.A.No.75 of 2008 in E.S.I.O.P.No.60 of 2008.
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
