Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)
Suresh Pillai vs The Recovery Officer on 2 February, 2018 cites

Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978

11. From the above decision, it can be inferred that there shall be minimal proof of wilful failure on the part of the judgment debtor and a fair procedure be adopted in finding as to whether he has the ability to pay, but have improperly evaded or postponed in doing so, or otherwise, dishonestly committed acts of bad faith. The underlining element is that a judgment debtor must be a honest person and unable to honour his obligations. In such cases, according to Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, fundamental rights of living with dignity shall not be taken away. In cases, where there is some other vice or mens rea, apart from failure to foot the decree, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will not apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 442 - V R Iyer - Full Document

People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 December, 1996

29. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the writ petitioner is not deprived of his personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as the action taken, is in accordance with due procedure of law. The petitioner lacks bonafides and therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The claim that he is entitled to Article 17 of the above mentioned covenant, is also not available to him, as there is no intrusion of privacy or attack on his honour and reputation. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [1997 (1) SCC 301], is not applicable to the writ petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 181 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next