Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)

Mahender Pratap vs Krishan Pal And Ors on 22 November, 2002

19. As held by the Supreme Court in Mahender Pratap vs. Krishan Pal, (2003) 1 SCC 390 that normally appropriate action for prosecution for perjury or initiation of contempt proceedings should be taken by the court in such cases lest the judicial process would continue to be polluted and misused by undeserving parties who have no real grievance or cause for seeking aid of judicial forums. Such false cases not only contribute to the work-load of the court and kill its precious time but create hurdles in the way of genuine litigants who sincerely need assistance of the court for obtaining justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

Dhananjay Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995

In Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757, the Supreme Court observed that any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone, who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits, evidence or making false statements on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements, and fabricating false evidence in a court of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - Full Document

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993

1 Ex. No. 18/05 in Ashok Nagar Welfare CJ/KKD, Delhi Pending Suit No. 222/98 Association v. Ravinder Kumar and ors 2 Suit No. 164/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. Vinod Pending Association v. Urmila Devi Kumar, ADJ, Delhi 3 Suit No. 163/05 Ashok Nagar Welfare ACJ/ARC(NE) Decided on Association v. Union of India 28.02.08 WP(C) No.3326/2006 Page 14 of 17 S.No. Case No. Parties name Name of Court Next date of hearing, if any.
Supreme Court of India Cites 163 - Cited by 385 - J S Verma - Full Document

S. Bhuvaneswari, P. Sujatha And S. Jagan ... vs Aci (Agro Chemical Industries) ... on 10 October, 2002

Malik Gupta, CJ, Delhi 23 Suit No. 597/91 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Mr. Sunil Rana, Pending New No. CS Association v. Vinod Kumar ADJ-03, (West) 144/09/91 Delhi 24 CC No. 1346/08 Mohan Singh v. V.K. 2nd Link MM, Pending Aggarwal and ors. KKD, Delhi 25 RFA No. 200- DDA v. Ashok Nagar High Court Pending 201/06 Welfare Association 28.07.09 26 Suit No. Ashok Nagar Welfare High Court Pending 1913/2000 Association through Mohan 03.09.09 Singh v. Mangal Chakraborty
Company Law Board Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Pramod Kumar And Ors. on 5 February, 1990

4 Suit No. Ashok Nagar Welfare CJ, Delhi Decided on 1704/90 Association v. Sunil Mistry 07.01.03 New No. S. 61/98 5 Suit No. Mahalakeshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending 106/2004 Association v. Keshav Devi & Ors. 6 Suit No. 287/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. B.R. Kedia, Pending New No. Association and ors v. ADJ, Delhi S.980/08/03 Surendra Devi & ors. 7 Suit No. 487/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending New Association (Regd.) v. No.233/08/03 Mallika Chaudhary 8 Suit No. 151/04 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Decided on New No. Association v. Pramod 24.09.08 S.193/04 Kumar 9 Suit No. Nil Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. N.K. Goel, Decided on New No.02/09 Association v. Surendra ADJ-15 09.03.09 & Misc No. Singh and ors (Central Delhi) 13/09 10 Suit No. 85/04 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. D.C. Decided on New No. M Association v. Rashmi Rekha Anand, ADJ, 04.11.06 54/06 Nath and ors Delhi.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1