Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.70 seconds)U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee vs Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani And Ors on 31 August, 1990
In this regard he has placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the Judgment rendered in U. P. Junior Doctor Action Committee v. Doctor B. Sheetal Nandwani and Ors. . in which it has been held that
where a person has obtained an order from the High Court by fraud or false representation that order, as well as all advantages obtained thereunder shall be cancelled.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
Admittedly the petitioners have not vacated the shop as per the undertaking given before the Court which has been noticed in the judgment dated 7.9.2006. The learned Counsel for the petitioners now Sri Mohd. Khalil prays for further three months' time to vacate the shop in dispute for which costs must be imposed upon the petitioners which in the facts and circumstances of the case is assessed at Rs. 20,000 in view of Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India , for use and occupation of the shop in dispute in spite of order and judgment and this Court and non-compliance of own undertaking given on behalf of the petitioners by their counsel.
P.R. Deshpande vs Maruti Balaram Haibatti on 11 August, 1998
29. The cases cited by the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable on facts and law. The case having decided on merits, the petitioner has remedy of appeal as held in R.P. Deshpande v. Maruti Balram HAIBAIIT which remedy has not been foreclosed by the High Court in this case. In fact the petitioner had gone to the Apex Court but when their petition was dismissed as the Hon'ble Apex Court did not want to entertain the special leave petition, they prayed for making an application before the High Court to apply for withdrawal of the undertaking given by the petitioner in this Court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1