Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
A.Arthur vs The Regional Director on 19 December, 2022 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhu on 3 November, 1993

15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994 (2) SCC 481 = 1994 SCC (L&S) 676) and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re- Rolling Mills (1994 (2) SCC 647 = AIR 1994 SC 2151. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 273 - R M Sahai - Full Document

A.P. State Financial Corpn vs Gar Re-Rolling Mills on 10 February, 1994

15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994 (2) SCC 481 = 1994 SCC (L&S) 676) and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re- Rolling Mills (1994 (2) SCC 647 = AIR 1994 SC 2151. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 233 - K Singh - Full Document

Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs Mr. K. Parasaran & Ors on 13 August, 1996

[See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr) v. K.Parasaran (1996 (5) SCC 530 = 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038 = JT 1996 (7) SC 265]. Today people rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 261 - K T Thomas - Full Document

Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998

16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations, whereas only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022 cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022 purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 445 - Full Document

Neetu ...Appellants vs State Of Punjab And Ors. ...Respondents on 8 January, 2007

6. Public interest litigation is an extremely important jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Apex Court in Neetu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 614, held that when a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as public interest litigation, the Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 131 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1