Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.64 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
Again, the Apex Court in the decision of Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma reported in 1991 (1) S.C.C. at page 421 inter alia held that to enable Court to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who ultimately prevail; that any one who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; that if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interfers with administration of justice and that such conduct is contempt of Court."
Smt.Darothi Clare Parreira & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 25 July, 1996
11. Judging the behaviour of the petitioner on the basis of the law elucidated by the Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy or leniency. At the first instance when nobody was appearing for the respondents, the petitioner managed to obtain an ex parte order on the basis of misrepresentation before the Court. Upon filing of affidavits, the said interim order was vacated. The petitioner, however, was not satisfied, he filed a rejoinder reiterating the false stand taken by him. Not only did he take a false stand on facts but he took a false stand in law also. He persisted with his plea that the land had not vested in the Municipal Corporation. It is a settled proposition of law that once a declaration is issued under section 10(3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the land is deemed to be vested in the Competent Authority. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Smt. Darothi Clare Parreira & others v. State of Maharashtra & others, wherein it has been clearly held that on publication of the notification under section 10(3) and after putting a date from which the land stands vested in the State and after publication of the notification in the Gazette and on and from the date mentioned therein, the excess vacant land stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In this view of the matter, the petitioner could hardly have taken the stand that he had a legal title to deliver the possession to the Corporation on 22nd September, 1983. Having considered the behaviour of the petitioner we were minded to recommend his prosecution for perjury. However, at this stage an affidavit has been filed by the Counsel for the petitioner who is present in Court wherein an unqualified apology has been tendered for the statements that had been made. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is 72 years of age and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken. Having sympathy for his old age and in view of the fact that no real damage has been done, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by either ordering the prosecution of the petitioner or for punishing him under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, in order to express our displeasure for the manner in which he has abused the process of the Court, we are constrained to burden him with costs.
Section 2 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
In the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Supreme Court in the words of Kuldip Singh, J., has observed as under.
Section 78 in The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
"One who comes to Court must come with clean hands. The position in law is too well settled to require any elucidation. The Apex Court has in S.P. Chengalavarya Naidu v. Jagannath and others inter alia observed that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties; that one who comes to Court must come with clean hands and that it can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation that a litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation, and that if he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. The Apex Court therein was dealing with a case where it was found that a preliminary decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court. It, therefore, observed that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another and that it is deception in order to gain by another's loss. A cheating intended to get an advantage.