Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (2.98 seconds)Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
193. This Court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi v.
Nirmala Devi had an occasion to deal with similar questions of law
regarding imposition of realistic costs and restitution. One of us
(Bhandari, J.) was the author of the judgment. It was observed in
that case as under: (SCC pp. 268-69, paras 54-55)
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2018 23:00:58 :::HCHP
20
"54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration
pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the defendants
or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the
.
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must
examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine
public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to
maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of
court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be
granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems
of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to
take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. [Refer :
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2018 23:00:58 :::HCHP
12
Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of
Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC
402].
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must
examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine
public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
32.8. The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to
maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of
court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be
granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems
of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to
take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it. [Refer :
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2018 23:00:58 :::HCHP
12
Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and State of
Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC
402].
P. S. R. Sadhanantham vs Arunachalam & Anr on 1 February, 1980
In P.S.R.Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam
& Anr. (1980) 3 SCC 141, the Court held:
Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968
H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem
and the court must make serious endeavour to resolve the
problem within the framework of law and in accordance with
the well-settled principles of law and justice.
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr. [1969 (1)
SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Pari palanai Sangam &
Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995) SCC 1, 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of
India & Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011) 7 SCC 639];
Haryana Waqf Board vs Shanti Sarup & Ors on 16 July, 2008
10. Normally, whenever there is a dispute of encroachment,
the proper procedure is to get the land demarcated through a
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2018 23:00:58 :::HCHP
5
competent revenue Officer. (Refer: Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti
Sarup and others, (2008) 8 SCC 671).
State Of M.P vs Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr on 29 September, 2011
Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors. v. Munshi & Anr. [1969 (1)
SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Pari palanai Sangam &
Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995) SCC 1, 421]; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of
India & Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011) 7 SCC 639];