Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 198 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 December, 2007

Central Warehouse Thr vs Union Of India Thr on 11 May, 2015

37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) "... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from tUdyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 5he applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in 5 R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Ano. v. Union of India & Ano.) motion by means of a misleading affidavit."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Trilok Chand Badariya vs Gyan Chand Badariya on 3 May, 2016

36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done .” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 5 he applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Association Of Md Physicians vs National Board Of Examination & Ors. on 23 May, 2022

18. At the outset, it must be emphasized that for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner must disclose full, complete, and correct facts. There should not be any suppression or distortion therein. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must, therefore, come with a pair of clean hands. The petitioner should not only suppress any material facts but, should also not have taken repeated/parallel recourse to legal proceedings. (Ref: Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) and Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114).
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Amar Dev vs State Of H. P. & Ors on 9 March, 2023

37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. Viscount Reading, C.J. observed "... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 5he applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Ano. v. Union of India & Ano.) motion by means of a misleading affidavit." (emphasis supplied)
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Manivannan vs The District Collector And on 5 September, 2008

In Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of U.P. And others [(2008) 1 SCC 560], it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the writ jurisdiction being equitable one, the suppression of any material fact should not be taken lightly and the conduct of a person to have recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again can be presumed to be abuse of process of law. In the context of the factual situation therein, viz., a party having been unsuccessful in his attempt to stall the recovery proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started for the purpose of filing a Public Interest Litigation and finding that the conduct of the appellant in filing various writ petitions in various names is abuse of process of law, the Apex Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Ketan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2023

10. The reliance was placed by Apex Court in case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560, K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and ors, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Dalip Singh VS. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Amar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2010), 2 SCC 114 and Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 398. In said judgments, Apex Court has held that petitioner has approached the Court with uncleaned hands then equitable relief under section 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted and petition deserves to be dismissed. No case is made out for warranting interference by this Court. There was no malafide on part of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE Signing time: 10/19/2023 2:50:54 PM 10 respondents and they had not violated the law of land and prayer was made for dismissal of writ petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Abdul Gani Bhat vs Chairman Islamia College on 7 June, 2024

16. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of U.P. and others', 2008(1) SCC 560, is applicable squarely to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has suppressed material facts while approaching this Court, as the core issue in this writ petition is same. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment has held as under:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next