Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
24 In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, it held that those who
do not come with clean hands does not deserve
discretionary relief of injunction.
24.1 Relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
"A party which has misled the Court in
passing an order in its favour is not
entitled to be heard on the merits of the
case. A person who invokes the High Court's
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is dutybound to place all the
facts before the Court without any
reservation. If there is suppression of
material facts or twisted facts have been
placed before the High Court then it will be
fully justified in refusing to entertain a
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution."
K.R.Shinivas vs R.M. Premchand on 30 September, 1994
25 In the case of Manohar Lal (dead) By LRS. vs.
Ugrasen (Dead) by LS. And others, (2010) 11 SCC
557, the Apex Court has held as under:
"48. The present appellants had also not
Page 28 of 31
HC-NIC Page 30 of 33 Created On Mon Sep 25 00:34:20 IST 2017
30 of 33
C/CA/10012/2017 ORDER
disclosed that land alloted to them falls
in commercial area. When a person
approaches a Court of equity in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he
should approach the Court not only with
clean hands but also with clean mind, clean
heard and clean objective. "Equally, the
judicial process should never become an
instrument of oppression or abuse or a
means in the process of the Court to
subvert justice." Who seeks equity must do
equity. The legal maxiim "Jure naturae
aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento
et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that
it is a law of nature that one should not
be enriched by the loss or injury to
another.(Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Unio of
India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and
Noorduddin v. Dr.K.L.Anand, at SCC p.249,
para 9.)
Noorduddin vs Dr. K.L. Anand on 6 October, 1994
25 In the case of Manohar Lal (dead) By LRS. vs.
Ugrasen (Dead) by LS. And others, (2010) 11 SCC
557, the Apex Court has held as under:
"48. The present appellants had also not
Page 28 of 31
HC-NIC Page 30 of 33 Created On Mon Sep 25 00:34:20 IST 2017
30 of 33
C/CA/10012/2017 ORDER
disclosed that land alloted to them falls
in commercial area. When a person
approaches a Court of equity in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, he
should approach the Court not only with
clean hands but also with clean mind, clean
heard and clean objective. "Equally, the
judicial process should never become an
instrument of oppression or abuse or a
means in the process of the Court to
subvert justice." Who seeks equity must do
equity. The legal maxiim "Jure naturae
aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento
et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that
it is a law of nature that one should not
be enriched by the loss or injury to
another.(Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Unio of
India, K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and
Noorduddin v. Dr.K.L.Anand, at SCC p.249,
para 9.)
Abdul Rahman vs Prasony Bai & Anr on 20 November, 2002
In abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai,
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v.
State of Bihar and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd.
v. Commr.(Admn.) this Court held that
whenever the Court comes to the conclusion
that the process of the Court is being
abused, the Court would be justified in
refusing to proceed further and refuse
relief to the party. This rule has been
evolved out of need of the courts to deter
a litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it."
M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004
In abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai,
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v.
State of Bihar and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd.
v. Commr.(Admn.) this Court held that
whenever the Court comes to the conclusion
that the process of the Court is being
abused, the Court would be justified in
refusing to proceed further and refuse
relief to the party. This rule has been
evolved out of need of the courts to deter
a litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it."