Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.08 seconds)
Shri Lotstar N Arengh And Ors vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 18 June, 2014 cites

Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000

A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. CIT: (1971) 3 SCC 20: AIR 1970 SC 645; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike V. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 622: AIR 2000 SC 2532; LIC v. Asha Goel: (2001) 2 SCC 160: AIR 2001 SC 549; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan: (2003) 6 SCC 545: 2003 SCC (L&S) 951; and Punjab Roadways, v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. : (2010) 5 SCC 235).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 333 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

Chandra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 22 July, 2003

"26. If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalized as those who fail to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh Case. The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 206 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Punjab Roadways Moga Tr.Gen.Manager vs Punjab Sahib Bus & Transport Co.& Ors on 27 April, 2010

A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. CIT: (1971) 3 SCC 20: AIR 1970 SC 645; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike V. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 622: AIR 2000 SC 2532; LIC v. Asha Goel: (2001) 2 SCC 160: AIR 2001 SC 549; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan: (2003) 6 SCC 545: 2003 SCC (L&S) 951; and Punjab Roadways, v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. : (2010) 5 SCC 235).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 43 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

M/S Sikkim Subba Associates vs State Of Sikkim on 1 May, 2001

27. Where a party's claim is not founded on valid grounds, the party cannot claim equity. A party that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh vis-à-vis the others unjustly. (vide: Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim (2001) 5 SCC 629)
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 230 - Full Document

M. P. Mittal vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 October, 1984

In M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana : (1984) 4 SCC 371:AIR 1984 SC 1888, this Court held: (SCC p.374, para 5) "5. ......it is open to the High Court to consider whether, in the exercise of its undoubted discretionary jurisdiction, it should decline relief to such petitioner if the grant of relief would defeat the interests of justice. The Court always has power to refuse relief where the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetrate an unjust gain."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 82 - R S Pathak - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhu on 3 November, 1993

30. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481:1984 SCC (L&S)676: (1994) 27 ATC 116 considered the scope of equity jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and pointed out as follows: (SCC p.486, para 5) "5. .....It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 273 - R M Sahai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next