Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)
Raj Kishore & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 9 July, 2013 cites

Advocate General, State Of Bihar vs Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries Ltd on 5 March, 1980

34. I am also pained to notice that owing to the appellants having indulged in abuse of the process of the Court as aforesaid, public has been deprived of the benefit of the land acquired for public purpose. The Supreme Court has time and again painstakingly reiterated that a litigant must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and that if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, the litigant shall be guilty of misleading the Court and abusing the process of the court [see Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311, State of Haryana Vs. K.N. Dutta (1995) 3 SCC 144, K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639]. The conduct of the appellants is prima facie found to be in obstruction and interference of administration of justice and to curb such practices by litigants, it is deemed expedient to, while dismissing the appeal, issue notice to show cause to the appellants as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 242 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Shri K.N. Dutt on 24 February, 1995

34. I am also pained to notice that owing to the appellants having indulged in abuse of the process of the Court as aforesaid, public has been deprived of the benefit of the land acquired for public purpose. The Supreme Court has time and again painstakingly reiterated that a litigant must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and that if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, the litigant shall be guilty of misleading the Court and abusing the process of the court [see Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311, State of Haryana Vs. K.N. Dutta (1995) 3 SCC 144, K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639]. The conduct of the appellants is prima facie found to be in obstruction and interference of administration of justice and to curb such practices by litigants, it is deemed expedient to, while dismissing the appeal, issue notice to show cause to the appellants as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008

34. I am also pained to notice that owing to the appellants having indulged in abuse of the process of the Court as aforesaid, public has been deprived of the benefit of the land acquired for public purpose. The Supreme Court has time and again painstakingly reiterated that a litigant must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and that if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, the litigant shall be guilty of misleading the Court and abusing the process of the court [see Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311, State of Haryana Vs. K.N. Dutta (1995) 3 SCC 144, K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639]. The conduct of the appellants is prima facie found to be in obstruction and interference of administration of justice and to curb such practices by litigants, it is deemed expedient to, while dismissing the appeal, issue notice to show cause to the appellants as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 513 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs State Of M.P. & Anr on 11 May, 2011

34. I am also pained to notice that owing to the appellants having indulged in abuse of the process of the Court as aforesaid, public has been deprived of the benefit of the land acquired for public purpose. The Supreme Court has time and again painstakingly reiterated that a litigant must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and that if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts, the litigant shall be guilty of misleading the Court and abusing the process of the court [see Advocate General, State of Bihar Vs. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311, State of Haryana Vs. K.N. Dutta (1995) 3 SCC 144, K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481 and Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 639]. The conduct of the appellants is prima facie found to be in obstruction and interference of administration of justice and to curb such practices by litigants, it is deemed expedient to, while dismissing the appeal, issue notice to show cause to the appellants as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 108 - Cited by 217 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next