Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.09 seconds)Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994
Section 219 in Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 December, 2007
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:
Section 34 in Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983
He would also rely upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co., Ltd., vs. State of Orissa [1983 (2)
SCC 433]. He would submit that neither the resolution of the Panchayat dated
7.2.2008, nor the order of the first respondent dated 8.2.2008 effecting
publication of notification, nor the notification dated 05.03.2008 have ever
been set aside by the Court and the petitioner has not challenged the same.
G.M. Haryana Roadways vs Jai Bhagwan & Anr on 5 March, 2008
That was also the view taken by the Supreme Court in G.M., Haryana Roadways vs.
Jai Bhagwan & Another [2008 AIR SCW 2252].