Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 128 (0.15 seconds)
Documents citing Green View Tea And Industries vs Collector, Golaghat, Assam And Anr. on 17 February, 2004

A Vtec Limited vs A Vtec And Hindustan Motors Shramik ... on 4 August, 2022

"12. The learned Additional Solicitor General contended that, in view of the fact that the special leave petition against the substantive judgment of the High Court dated 24-6-1998 was dismissed as withdrawn, there was no question of enter- taining a review application in respect of the said judgment and sought revocation of the leave granted. In our view, this contention is misconceived.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

The Special Deputy Collector vs K.Bala Nagi Reddy on 18 July, 2025

In Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and another (cited supra), the Supreme Court referring the judgment in S.Nagaraj and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 10 AIR Online 1993 SC 506, where in the said case, it was observed that "it is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and re-call its orders as and when it is brought to its notice that certain of its orders was passed on a wrong or mistake assumption of facts and that implementation of those orders would have serious consequences and an act of Court should prejudice none."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

Arjun Yash Mahajan vs Shivani Mahajan on 21 December, 2018

[13]. Allowing the parties to re-open the concluded judgments on the basis of some untested material would be an abuse of process of law and the same would have far reaching adverse consequences on the administration of justice. The principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. It is equally important to prevent unscrupulous litigant from taking undue advantage through the process of the Court. It is an onerous duty and obligation of the Court to ensure that an undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by exercising the process of the Court. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in imposing punitive costs, where legal process has been abused. Doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in ordinary circumstances. The view expressed in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 362 can be relied in the aforesaid context.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Phool Chand vs M/S Mohan Dai Oswal Cancer Treatment And ... on 9 April, 2019

It is an onerous duty and obligation of the Court to ensure undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by exercising the process of the Court, even after finality of litigation upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. Doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in the ordinary circumstances. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Court in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. vs. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (1976) 4 SCC 124, Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 362 and M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka & Others, 2012(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 807 can be relied in the aforesaid context.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next