Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hari Narain vs Badri Das on 4 March, 1963
In Hari Narain v.
Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on litigants eschewing
inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 30-07-2025
10:58:51
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34854
12 RP-1084-2025
an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p. 1560,
para 9)"
Arunima Baruah vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2007
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs Union
of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
suppression must be of 'material' fact. It was observed :
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. And Anr vs B.D. Agarwal And Ors on 7 July, 2003
"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the
Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy.
Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v.
B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi
v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 :
Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat & Ors on 5 April, 2007
"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the
Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy.
Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v.
B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi
v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 :
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under:
Welcome Hotel And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 22 August, 1983
In Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 872 : AIR 1983 SC 1015] the Court held that a party which has
misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of the case.
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) Byl.Rs. ... vs Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr on 29 April, 1991
In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC
261 : AIR 1991 SC 1726] the Court denied relief to the appellant who
had concealed the fact that the award was not made by the Land
Acquisition Officer within the time specified in Section 11-A of the
Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High
Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed: