Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 267 (0.74 seconds)Vijay Kumar Ghai vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 March, 2022
13. A two-Judge bench of this Court in K. Jayaram and Ors. Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.15 observed:
FAO/31/2024 on 24 September, 2024
Referring to some decisions
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs.
Jai Bhagwan & Anr. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 127 and K.
Jayaram & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authorities & Ors,
reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815, and Ramjas Foundation &
Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 14 SCC
38, Mr. Hazarika, the learned counsel for the respondent also argued at
the time of hearing that withholding relevant materials would amounts to
playing fraud upon the court and the litigants cannot be allowed to play
'hide and seek' or 'pick and choose'. Though Mr. Das, the learned counsel
for the appellants submits that there is no material suppression, yet the
said submissions left this court unimpressed in view of the discussion and
finding recorded herein above.
Achchey Lal Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 15 July, 2024
20. The other argument of the learned G.A. that as the applicant has not come with clean hand, the discretionary relief cannot be extended. On the foundation of the judgment in the case of K. Jayaram vs Bangalore Development Authority (Supra) merits rejection as it is fairly well settled that constitutional power under Article 226 are extraordinary discretionary power conferred upon the constitutional courts and the court can refuse to exercise the said power on various factors one of them being that the person not approaching clean hand and concealing the material facts whereas in the present case, the power invoked by the court is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which is a statutory power and does not confer extraordinary discretion and cannot be exercised on the same analogy, as is required for exercise of power under Article 226. Further more in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII Rule 18-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the application for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are required to disclose facts as specified from sub-rule 1 to sub-rule 8. In short, the requirements of exercise of powers under Article 226 are on different footing and the exercise of power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised on the same lines.
Sunil Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 10 August, 2023
Relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in K. Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others (supra) is extracted as under:-
Fareed Hussain vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 1 July, 2025
10.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Jayaram and others vs
Bangalore Development Authority and ors reported in 2022 (12)
SCC 815, has held as under:
Kishori Lal Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Jayaram and others Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority and others decided on
08.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7550-7553 of 2021 has held as under:
Prabhat Mohan Pandey vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2024
3. Order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No(s)
7550-7553 of 2021 (Shri K. Jayaram and others vs.
Bangalore Development Authority and others)
Roopnarayan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 June, 2024
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of K. Jayaram and Others Vs. Bangalore
Development Authority and Others reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815.
Mohd.Sabir Khan vs Central Bank Of India, on 22 August, 2024
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K. Jayaram and others Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority and others decided on 08.12.2021 in Civil
Appeal No.7550-7553 of 2021 has held as under: