Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)State Of Haryana And Ors. vs Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 29 November, 1976
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 April, 1983
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
Welcome Hotel And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 22 August, 1983
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (Dead) Byl.Rs. ... vs Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr on 29 April, 1991
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
Oswal Fats And Oils Ltd vs Addl.Commnr.,Bareilly Division & Ors on 1 April, 2010
The writ court is a court of equity. The writ petitioners are required to disclose all facts and
cannot selectively refer to some facts and avoid others, which goes to the very root of the matter.
The writ petitioners have suppressed the material facts and there is a deliberate attempt to conceal
the facts, which would have a bearing on the issue involved in this writ petition. The candid
disclosure of all material facts is a pre-requisite for invoking equitable jurisdiction of this court. The
effect of non-disclosure of such material facts have to be dealt with seriously and sternly and the
effect of such non-disclosure has been discussed in a decision - Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs.
Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others, reported in (2010)
4 SCC 728. The relevant portion whereof is set out hereinbelow:-
Union Of India & Ors vs Muneesh Suneja on 30 January, 2001
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
Sunil Poddar & Ors vs Union Bank Of India on 8 January, 2008
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."
Shri. M D N Panicker vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 6 August, 2010
This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied
the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be
heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana, Welcome Hotel v State of A.P., G.
Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naaidu v.
Jagannath, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, Union
of India v. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank
of India, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Dalip
Singh v. State of U.P.
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das this Court revoked the leave granted to the
appellant by making the following observations: (AIR p.1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it would be unfair of betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."