Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (3.16 seconds)Arunima Baruah vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2007
(i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 120], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 11 to 14, held as follows:
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
(ii) In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India [(2007) 8 SCC
449], at Paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, it has been held as follows:
Shrimant Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune on 22 April, 1992
34. The object underlying the above principle has been
succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax
Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in
the following words: "(I)t has been for many years the rule of the
Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain,
that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an
ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all
the material facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can
help the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing
about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the
facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation
W.A. No.1080/20 31
is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly
stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken
on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied)
Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 5 December, 2007
(iii) In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and
another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 1 SCC 560], at paragraphs
16 and 17, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as follows:
Advocate General, State Of Bihar vs Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries Ltd on 5 March, 1980
In Advocate
General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC
311], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of
writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
Amar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011
(iv) In Amar Singh v. Union of India & Others reported in (2011) 7
SCC 69, on the aspect of a litigant approaching the court, with unclean
hands, at, paragraphs 53 to 57, and at, paragraph 59, considered
several judgments.
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
In the last noted case of Dalip Singh (supra), this Court
has given this concept a new dimension which has a far reaching
effect. We, therefore, repeat those principles here again:
Hari Narain vs Badri Das on 4 March, 1963
59. The aforesaid requirement of coming to Court with clean
hands has been repeatedly reiterated by this Court in a large
number of cases. Some of which may be noted, they are: Hari
Narain v. Badri Das - AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel and
others v. State of A.P. and others - (1983) 4 SCC 575, G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) by LRs.
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
Government of Karnatka and another - (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs.
W.A. No.1080/20 34
and others (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v.
Government of A.P. and others - (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights
Limited v. SBI - (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and others v.
Union Bank of India - (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D.Sharma v. SAIL and
others - (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree and others v.
Bhagwandas S. Patel and others - (2009) 3 SCC 141, Dalip Singh
v. State of U.P. and others - (2010) 2 SCC 114.