Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1167 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Nagendra Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 March, 2024

It is not that everything said by a Judge while giving judgment, constitutes a precedent and submits that in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) nothing has been said so far as the statement of principle of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts and it has got nothing to do with the facts of the present case. Hence, the ratio of the said case is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Salma vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 17 July, 2020

32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. 32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2020 20:20:59 :::HCHP 15 endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well­justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sood vs Sardar Darshan Singh on 21 November, 2018

32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani on 25 May, 2012

24. The entire journey of a judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties. Truth is the basis of justice delivery system. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114 observed that truth constitutes an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system."
Delhi High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 195 - J R Midha - Full Document

Salma vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 17 July, 2020

32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. 32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2020 20:20:57 :::HCHP 15 endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well­justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Having Its Administrative Office At vs Rainproof Exports Pvt. Ltd. on 23 January, 2013

29. Reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment in case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(supra) in support of the submission that the petitioner bank has suppressed certain facts before the Assistant Registrar and thus were guilty of misleading the court and thus present writ petition filed by the petitioner shall be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. In my view, there is no suppression or any misleading statement ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:35:28 ::: kvm 37/39 ARBP935&936&937.12 made by the bank in the present proceedings or before the authorities or that the such statement is of such nature which would debar the petitioner from hearing of the present matter on merits by this court.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Subhash Chand Sharma vs Smt. Shakuntla Devi (Deceased) Through ... on 9 January, 2015

Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Mohinder Kumar vs Surinder Kumar Sood And Another on 24 July, 2017

32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well- justifies it. [Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 4 - T S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next