Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
11. The said view was, thereafter, followed in Dalip Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein also the
writ petitioner had not stated the correct facts before the High Court and
delayed the benefit of the surplus land which was to go to the landless
poor persons. It was, accordingly, held that the case belongs to category of
persons who not only attempt, but have succeeded in polluting the course
of justice and mislead the Court, no case for interference would be made
Page No.7
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 05-05-2023 22:29:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:062465-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:062465-DB
CWP-19348-2022 (O&M)
out. It was also held that a misleading fact was put forward before the
High Court and the appellant had succeeded in persuading the Court to
pass an order which had resulted in frustrating the efforts made by the
concerned authority regarding the distribution of the surplus land.
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
10. The Apex Court has time and again laid down the principles
that the Writ Court while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction would
not hear a person on merits, if there is suppression of material facts. It was
held that disclosure of true, complete and correct facts was a very basis of
the writ jurisdiction. Relevant observations made in the judgment passed
in Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, read
as under:-
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1