Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008 cites

Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 April, 1983

In Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 333, it was the case of the petitioners that the provisional admissions granted to them were not cancelled and they were continuing their studies as post-graduate students in Medical College on the relevant 3 date. On the basis of that statement, they obtained an order of status quo. The Supreme Court ordered inquiry and the District Judge was asked to submit his report whether the provisional admissions granted to the petitioners were continued till October 1, 1982 or were cancelled. The report revealed that to the knowledge of the petitioners their provisional admissions were cancelled long before October 1, 1982 and thus, the petitioners had made false representation to the Court and obtained a favourable order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 127 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Welcome Hotel And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 22 August, 1983

In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P., (1983) 4 SCC 575, certain hoteliers filed a 3 petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the maximum price of foodstuffs fixed by the Government contending that it was uneconomical and obtained ex parte stay order. The price, however, was fixed as per the agreement between the petitioners and the Government but the said fact was suppressed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 115 - D A Desai - Full Document

Agricultural And Processed Food ... vs Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. And Others on 30 April, 1996

In Agricultural & Process Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furnae, (1996) 4 SCC 297, the petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was pending. Suppressing that fact, it filed another petition in the High Court of Delhi and obtained an order in its favour. Observing that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of 3 `very important fact', this Court set aside the order of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Muneesh Suneja on 30 January, 2001

In Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja, (2001) 3 SCC 92, the detenu challenged an order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 (COFEPOSA) by filing a petition in the High Court of Delhi which was withdrawn. Then he filed a similar petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana wherein he did not disclose the fact as to filing of the earlier 3 petition and withdrawal thereof and obtained relief. In an appeal by the Union of India against the order of the High Court, this Court observed that non-disclosure of the fact of filing a similar petition and withdrawal thereof was indeed fatal to the subsequent petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 157 - Full Document

All India State Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 April, 1990

40. A special reference may be made to a decision of this Court in All India Sate Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 336. In that case, promotion policy of the Bank was challenged by the Federation by filing a petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was supported by an affidavit and the contents were affirmed by the President of the Federation to be true to his `personal knowledge'. It was stated: "The petitioners have not filed any other similar writ petition in this Honourable Court or any other High Court".
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 Next