Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Trilok Chand Badariya vs Gyan Chand Badariya on 3 May, 2016 cites

Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 December, 2007

36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done .” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 5 he applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 129 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010

“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 maxim “ 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. Union of India , K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v.Dr. K.L.Anand at SCC p. 249, para 9.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 314 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

K.R.Shinivas vs R.M. Premchand on 30 September, 1994

“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 maxim “ 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. Union of India , K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Noorduddin v.Dr. K.L.Anand at SCC p. 249, para 9.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 166 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Bismilla Bee vs Arjuman Aara on 11 July, 2014

In the case of Bismilla Bee Vs. Arjuman Aara-2014(3) MPLJ-593, the court opined that written statement must be filed within time stipulated. After that the permission can be granted only if adequate reasons are assigned. The court below in its discretionary jurisdiction and as per material on record reached to a plausible conclusion. No fault can be found in the said conclusion because relevant material was never produced before passing the impugned order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next