Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Rahman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2024 cites

A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007

In case of A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra), the order of recall which was obtained by fraud had been considered, but here in this case, in my opinion, no fraud has been played by the petitioners. The respondents have been given full opportunity to defend the case; they appeared before the Court; and filed reply, but not pointed out any fraud or past litigation as is being pointed out before this Court by moving an application for recalling of the order. Although, it is also explained that the cause of action in favour of the petitioners arose only in the year 2016 when the order of regularization was passed by the respondents in their favour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 629 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Pratibha Industries Limited on 4 December, 2018

In case of Pratibha Industries Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court is a Court of record and has power to recall its order. However, recall of order in every occasion is not proper. So far as the power of High Court is concerned, there is no dispute about the same, but there must be justiciable reason for recalling of order, which according to this Court, is not available in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 44 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S Swagatika Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 June, 2022

16. The case of Ms. Swagatika Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not help the counsel for respondent No.2 because the facts of that case are altogether different from the case in hand. There was no question of suppression of material fact because the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioners only when the order dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure-P/6) was passed by the authority regularizing them in pursuance of their contract appointment, but not granting them the benefit of regularization from the date of completion of two years of service whereas some of the private respondents were granted the said benefit after completion of two years service and as such, asking the benefit of policy dated 29.11.1996 (Annexure-P/1) on the ground of discrimination, the instant 10 W.P. No.2013 of 2017 petition has been filed. However, in the case on which the counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - S Paul - Full Document

Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2015

7. To substantiate her stand, Ms. Banerjee has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7490 (Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and others), (2014) 10 SCC 432 (Union of India and others Vs. Atul Shukla and others), (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others) and 2015 SCC OnLine MP 5012 (Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Atul Shukla Etc on 24 September, 2014

7. To substantiate her stand, Ms. Banerjee has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7490 (Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and others), (2014) 10 SCC 432 (Union of India and others Vs. Atul Shukla and others), (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others) and 2015 SCC OnLine MP 5012 (Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 59 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005

7. To substantiate her stand, Ms. Banerjee has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7490 (Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and others), (2014) 10 SCC 432 (Union of India and others Vs. Atul Shukla and others), (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others) and 2015 SCC OnLine MP 5012 (Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another).
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 542 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Brij Mohan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 April, 2015

7. To substantiate her stand, Ms. Banerjee has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7490 (Pratap Narayan Vishwakarma Vs. State of M.P. and others), (2014) 10 SCC 432 (Union of India and others Vs. Atul Shukla and others), (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others) and 2015 SCC OnLine MP 5012 (Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Vatal Nagaraj vs R. Dayanand Sagar on 11 October, 1974

24. In view of this conduct of petitioner, a sizable amount of precious time of court is being wasted. We deem it proper to observed that suppression of facts cannot be termed as 'advocacy'. If a litigant discloses all the facts correctly and then able to convince the court, it can be treated as skill of advocacy. The litigation is neither a game of chess nor a hide and seek game but a search for truth and parties must place their cards on the table [See: Vatal Nagraj v. R. Dayanand Sagar, (1975) 4 SCC 127].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 16 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1