Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Section 30 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
27. According to the appellant, this Court in Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistant Charity
Commissioner and Others (2004) 3 SCC 137 has observed
that no injunction can be granted against the true owner and
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked to
protect the wrongdoer who suppressed the material facts from
the Courts.
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
85. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari
Devi and Others (supra) aptly observed at page 266 that
unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it
would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for
and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is
no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter
of common experience that Court's otherwise scarce time is
consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of
uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided
that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if
exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation.
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991
In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 Supp
(1) SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a
question that arises for consideration is whether the presiding
officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a
contest between two parties and declare at the end of the
combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any
legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an
active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and
administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled
principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-
Ritesh Tewari & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 21 September, 2010
In Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of U.P. and
Others (2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted
quotation which reads as under:
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC
421 to enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in
their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury,
pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be
appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be
possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense
and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope
that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in
Courts when they would find that truth alone triumphs in
Courts.
Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006
"28. The expressions `due process of law', `due
course of law' and `recourse to law' have been
interchangeably used in the decisions referred to
above which say that the settled possession of even
a person in unlawful possession cannot be
disturbed `forcibly' by the true owner taking law in
his own hands. All these expressions, however,
mean the same thing -- ejectment from settled
possession can only be had by recourse to a court of
law. Clearly, `due process of law' or `due course of
law', here, simply mean that a person in settled
possession cannot be ejected without a court of law
having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true
owner.
Puran Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 1975
97. This Court in Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab
(1975) 4 SCC 518 held that an occupation of the property by a
person as an agent or a servant at the instance of the owner
will not amount to actual physical possession.
Sham Lal vs Rajinder Kumar And Ors. on 5 August, 1994
100. The ratio of this judgment in Sham Lal (supra) is that
merely because the plaintiff was employed as a servant or
chowkidar to look after the property, it cannot be said that he
had entered into such possession of the property as would
entitle him to exclude even the master from enjoying or
claiming possession of the property or as would entitle him to
compel the master from staying away from his own property.