AI Overview...
-
Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 - The case discusses the legal position regarding the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by courts, emphasizing that no specific limitation period is prescribed for approaching the court under such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that even the shortest delay can be a ground for denial of relief if it causes prejudice or injustice Mahantesh VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, BIR BAHADUR THAPA VS UNION OF INDIA - Himachal Pradesh, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited VS C. Raghunathan - Karnataka.
-
No Limitation for Extraordinary Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court clarified that there is no prescribed period within which a party must seek relief through extraordinary jurisdiction, underscoring the court's discretion in such matters BIR BAHADUR THAPA VS UNION OF INDIA - Himachal Pradesh.
-
Civil Court vs. Court of Law - In a case involving property and succession, the court noted that objections based on civil rights or property disputes, such as change of khatha based on a will, are within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and the court's decision depends on the merits of the case B.C. CHANDRASHEKAR ARADHYA vs PRESIDENT - Karnataka.
-
Strict Approach to Delay - The apex court has taken a strict stance that even minimal delay can disqualify a petitioner from relief, especially in cases involving promotion or service matters, as seen in P.S. Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, where delay was a key factor for rejection of the challenge M G SADASHIVASWAMY Vs THE MANAGER - Karnataka.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The cases collectively highlight that while courts, particularly the Supreme Court, do not prescribe a limitation period for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, they are stringent about delays in filing petitions. Delay, even minimal, can be a ground for dismissal if it results in prejudice or injustice. Civil disputes, such as property or succession issues, are generally within civil courts' jurisdiction, and courts tend to scrutinize the timing and merits of petitions closely, especially in service and promotion cases.
References:
- Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152
- Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 (!) SLR 53
- P.S. Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271
- Additional case references and court observations as cited.
Search Results for "Sadhashivaswamy P"
2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 2008 • India - Karnataka
S.G.PANDIT
Sadashivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as follows: 2...........................
1991 0 Supreme(HP) 79 • India - Himachal Pradesh
DEVINDER GUPTA, D.P.SOOD
Sadashivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 (!) SLR 53, which has been relied upon by the respondents, the Supreme Court held that no period of limitation has been prescribed within which a party may approach the court for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 947 • India - Karnataka
S. SUJATHA, RAVI V. HOSMANI
Sadashivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 (para-2) "2.
• India - High Court of Karnataka
P.B.BAJANTHRI
Sadashivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SC 2271, P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, State of M.P. and others Vs.
• India - Delhi High Court
Sadashivaswamy v.
• India - Delhi High Court
Sadashivaswamy v.
1983 0 Supreme(Kar) 176 • India - Karnataka
G.N.SABHAHIT, R.S.MAHENDRA
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37278 • India - THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.SANDESH
SADASHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. HEREMATTA, BANAVARA, KOTE, ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103. 4. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O. LATE B.R.SADASHIVASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. HEREMATTA, BANAVARA, KOTE, ARSIKERE TALUK-573 103. ... On the basis of the Will, the plaintiff applied for change of khatha and at that time, husband of defendant No.3 and father of defendant No.4 Sri Sadashivaswamy B.R., filed objections stating that it comes under the Civil Court.
• India - High Court of Karnataka
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2926 • India - High Court of Karnataka
S.G.PANDIT
The Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S.SADASHIVASWAMY v/s STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS has held that shortest delay also would disentitle the petitioner for any relief. 7. In the above circumstances, the challenge to promotion of respondents is rejected.
Filter by Legal Phrase
