Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
"16. Our Courts have repeatedly held that where a person
comes to Court with a case based on a false Suit, his case can
be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. He is
bound to be candid with the Court withholding a vital
documents -- and minutes before Arbitral Tribunal were
certainly vital documents -- in order to gain advantage
tantamount to a fraud on the Court and on the other side. This
is the view of the Supreme Court in SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v
Jagannath & Ors. 1 In Ashok Leyland Ltd v State of Tamil Nadu
and Another,2 the Court said suppression of a material
document amounts to a fraud on the Court.
Ashok Leland Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 7 January, 2004
"16. Our Courts have repeatedly held that where a person
comes to Court with a case based on a false Suit, his case can
be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. He is
bound to be candid with the Court withholding a vital
documents -- and minutes before Arbitral Tribunal were
certainly vital documents -- in order to gain advantage
tantamount to a fraud on the Court and on the other side. This
is the view of the Supreme Court in SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v
Jagannath & Ors. 1 In Ashok Leyland Ltd v State of Tamil Nadu
and Another,2 the Court said suppression of a material
document amounts to a fraud on the Court.
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
In A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors v Government of A.P. and
Ors.,3 the Supreme Court said this:
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
In Dalip Singh v
State of U.P.,4 the Supreme Court said that a litigant who
attempts to pervert justice and comes to Court with tented
hands is dis-entitled to all reliefs.
Oswal Fats And Oils Ltd vs Addl.Commnr.,Bareilly Division & Ors on 1 April, 2010
More pointedly, in Oswal Fats
and Oils Limited v Additional Commissioner (Administration),
Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Ors;5 the Supreme Court said
there a person who suppresses material information has no
right to be heard on the merits of his grievance. Coming now to
the order under Appeal, I do not believe the learned Judge can
be faulted, although the order will have be set aside. He is as
much a victim of the fraud as the Appellants and other parties
to the Arbitration.
Hari Narain vs Badri Das on 4 March, 1963
In Hari Narain v Badri Das,6 the Supreme
Court said that in dealing with said although in the context of
1 Appeal from Order No (St.) 15040 of 2017
Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi vs Vasudev Dhanjlbhai Mody on 1 May, 1963
In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody,7 the Supreme Court said clearly
that he who approaches a Court seeking an equitable or a
discretion indemnity must come with clean hands. If there is an
attempt to mislead a Court by false or untrue statement or
withholding true information which would have a bearing on
the question of exercise of discretion, the Court would be
justified in refusing to exercise that discretion.
M/S Sciemed Overseas Inc vs Boc India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016
In the case of Sciemed Overseas Incorporated (Supra)
and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik & Anr (Supra) the Supreme Court has
stated in the clearest possible terms that frivolous and groundless
filings constitute a serious menace to administration of justice. It also
said that where the dispensing of justice is misused by the
unscrupulous to the detriment of legitimate, the Court must deal with
these with firm hands. In the words of the Supreme Court, a strong
message must be conveyed that Courts of justice will not be allowed to
be disrupted by litigants' strategy designed to profit from delays to the
detriment of legitimate Flat Purchasers.