Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (1.75 seconds)
Documents citing Udai Chand vs Shanker Lal & Others on 7 February, 1978

Ppn Power Generating Company Limited vs Ppn (Mauritius) Company And Ors. on 5 July, 2004

The CLB would decline any discretionary remedy only when "material facts" are suppressed and untrue and misleading statements are by the applicant and therefore the decision of the apex court is Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, more so when the written request made before the ICC Arbitral Tribunal invoking the arbitration clause under the PPA, is already produced before the CLB. The correspondence which was said to be suppressed were already made available at the time of hearing. The applicant cannot be declined any discretionary relief, in the absence of any untrue and misleading statement made by them.
Company Law Board Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Khurana vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 February, 1996

(65) In the 8th case, referred to above, the Supreme Court observed at page 855 as under:- "The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
Delhi High Court Cites 123 - Cited by 8 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document

Babul Products Private Ltd. vs Zen Products on 7 July, 2005

Reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal, . In the said decision, the Supreme Court revoked the order granting special leave and held that there was a mis-statement of material fact and that amounted to serious misrepresentation. The principles applicable are same whether it is a case of mis-statement of a material fact or suppression of material fact.
Gujarat High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Narayana Iyer vs / on 23 December, 2020

Since the suit for eviction filed not on the ground of efflux of time alone, it was primarily pegged on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellants who had the knowedge and possession of the lease deed Ex.B-1, ought to have placed before the Court at the earliest. Having suppressed the document and introducing it belatedly only force to draw adverse inference against the appellant. Therefore, the two judgments viz., (1) Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal and Ors. reported in [AIR 1978 SC 765] and (2) Seemax Construction (P) Ltd., v. State Bank of India and Ors. reported in [AIR 1992 Delhi 197] referred by the appellant regarding supression of fact really is in favour of the respondent and not for the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Delhi Lotteries vs Rajesh Aggarwal And Others on 20 October, 1997

40. Learned counsel in order to substantiate his argument has led me through a number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the case reported in Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal, , relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (as reported in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, ; Hari Narain v. Badri Das, . It was observed "in dealing with applications for special leave, the court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the court by making statements which are untrue and misleading.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. vs State Bank Of India And Another on 12 December, 1991

Reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal, . In the said decision the Supreme Court revoked the order granting special leave and held that there was a misstatement of material fact and that amounted to serious misrepresentation. The principles applicable are same whether it is a case of misstatement of a material fact or suppression of material fact.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 105 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next