Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
Manivannan vs The District Collector And on 5 September, 2008 cites

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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 129 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 897 - A P Sen - Full Document

Sivaperumal vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 13 March, 2006

27. For the same reason, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be driven to file a revision before the Government under section 219 of the Act, while it is true that pending decision for cancellation of notification issued by the Inspector, the Government under section 205(12) of the Act can postpone the date specified in the said notification, because it is the power of granting interim order by the Government, as elicited by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by P.D.Dinakaran,J, (as His Lordship then was) in the order dated 13.3.2006 in W.A. (MD) No.98 of 2006 (Sivaperumal vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others). Such power of the Government, even if it is treated as appellate power under section 205 (12) or the power of revision under section 219 of the Act, can be usefully exercised by the Government only in the light of the view expressed by the Panchayat in the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar, which is a cardinal principle of the concept of democracy. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered view that on the factual situation, the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the basis that it is not maintainable or on the basis that the appellate remedy is available under section 205(12) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1