Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)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.
S.S. Balu And Anr vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 13 January, 2009
In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [(2009) 2 SCC 479],
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the following terms:-
Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968
In Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor
Service, Amravati and others[6] 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[7], which is as follows: -
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Seshachalam on 18 September, 2007
In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC
137, while testing the equality clause on the bedrock of
delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefits,
Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that:-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
The Hon'ble Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Council
v. Pan Singh, [ (2007) 9 SCC 278 ], observed as under:-
1