Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)Section 20 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968
7. On the question of delay in filing a matter in the Court, it has
been held in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati and others[AIR 1969 SC
329] the Court referred to the principle that has been stated by
Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong
Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp[(1874) 5 PC 221], which is
as follows:-
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar[(1995) 4 SCC 683],
while dealing with exercise of power of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court observed
that power of the High Court to be exercised under Article
226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must
be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is
for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the
State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation
of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend
upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief,
and the court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to
such person in exercise of such power, when he
approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy
conduct.
1