Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.37 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Welcome Hotel And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 22 August, 1983
In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and others etc., AIR 1983 SC 1015 the Court held that 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.
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) Byl.Rs. ... vs Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr on 29 April, 1991
In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Govt. of
Karnataka and another, AIR 1991 SC 1726, the Court denied
relief to the appellant who had concealed the fact that the
award was not made by the Land Acquisition Officer within
the time specified in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act
because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While
dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed :
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath
(dead) by L.Rs. and others, JT (1993) 6 SC 331, the Court
held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by
withholding an important document from the Court, the party
concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the
litigation.
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC
449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a Court of
law, but is also a Court of equity and a person who invokes
the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is duty bound 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
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Shrimant Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune on 22 April, 1992
This Court
referred to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R. v. Kensington
Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486, and observed:
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
Sunil Poddar & Ors vs Union Bank Of India on 8 January, 2008
In Sunil Poddar & Ors. v. Union Bank of India, (2008) 2
SCC 326 :(2008 AIR SCW 556), the Court held that while
exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of
the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is
miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward
with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts
that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings,
then the Court, will non-suit him on the ground of
contumacious conduct.
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008
In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others
(2008) 12 SCC 48l : (2008 AIR SCW 6654), the Court held that
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is
imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must
come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before
the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and
seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of
relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of
misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the
threshold without considering the merits of the claim.