Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.73 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2011
The Supreme Court in Indian Counsel for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India and Ors.
reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 [Coram: Dr. Dalveer Bhandari and H.L. Dattu, JJ.] discussed the
entire issue of finality of judgement in paragraphs 103 to 142. The principle on which the
'Doctrine of Finality' is based has been delineated in paragraphs 103 and 142 that are provided
below:-
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
I. Sri T.Satyanaryana who is the applicant in earlier OA 867/2018, has
not revealed about the disposal of CP 78/2019 in OA 867/2018 on 11.11.2019 and
hence, the applicant has not come with clean hands to the Tribunal. A litigant is
bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & v. Munshi [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A.
Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430];Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995)1 SCC 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC
145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC
639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].
Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011
I. Sri T.Satyanaryana who is the applicant in earlier OA 867/2018, has
not revealed about the disposal of CP 78/2019 in OA 867/2018 on 11.11.2019 and
hence, the applicant has not come with clean hands to the Tribunal. A litigant is
bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & v. Munshi [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A.
Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430];Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995)1 SCC 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC
145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC
639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].
State Of M.P vs Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr on 29 September, 2011
I. Sri T.Satyanaryana who is the applicant in earlier OA 867/2018, has
not revealed about the disposal of CP 78/2019 in OA 867/2018 on 11.11.2019 and
hence, the applicant has not come with clean hands to the Tribunal. A litigant is
bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & v. Munshi [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A.
Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430];Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995)1 SCC 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC
145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC
639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].
Kalyaneshwari vs U.O.I. & Ors on 21 January, 2011
I. Sri T.Satyanaryana who is the applicant in earlier OA 867/2018, has
not revealed about the disposal of CP 78/2019 in OA 867/2018 on 11.11.2019 and
hence, the applicant has not come with clean hands to the Tribunal. A litigant is
bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & v. Munshi [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A.
Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam [(2012) 6 SCC 430];Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995)1 SCC 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [(2011) 6 SCC
145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC
639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].
Pushpa B R vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2018
In making the above
remarks, we take support of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in Pushpa B R vs The State of Karnataka on 21 August, 2018 in Writ
Petition Nos.35510-35513/2018 (LB-RES)
"18. The petitioners have not produced any material documents to establish their
residential proof in the address furnished along with the writ petitions with
verifying affidavit. This clearly indicates that the petitioners have not come to the
Court with clean hands. It is expected that every citizen, who approach the Court
seeking justice should be fair to the Court. When they are not fair, it amounts to
abuse of process of Court and contempt of Court. It is well settled that the person
seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but
also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of
judicious litigation. The petitioners have unnecessarily dragged the Tahsildar,
Municipal Commissioner and the Counselor before this Court, wasting their
public time. The conduct and attitude of the petitioners in manner to cause
colossal insult to justice and are against the majesty of law which cannot be
encouraged in order to see that democratic values enshrined in the Constitution
are respected and faith of people in the judicial institutional system is not lost.
Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs Mr. K. Parasaran & Ors on 13 August, 1996
39. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be
permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant
has a right to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to
get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not
be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (Buddhi Kota
Subbarao v. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530)."