A batch of SLPs submitted by appellant educational institutions are dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment, who were held not to have approached the Apex Court with clean hands.
Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011
A batch of SLPs submitted by appellant educational institutions are dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment, who were held not to have approached the Apex Court with clean hands.
Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011
A society which has earlier given NOC for Raam Leela in a park later on made a U turn and filed a Contempt of Court proceeding which was duly stuck down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
D-Block Pandav Nagar Residents Vs Amit Yadav And Ors on 13 October, 2015Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Interesting case of a liquor merchant trying to approach with unclean hands and gain illegal order from Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
MS Manu Sharma And Company Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 September, 2016Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Hon’ble Apex court has clearly held that any order that got caused by suppression of information, any Court has an obligation to set aside the said order.
From Para 10,
…learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that when the accused has not approached the court in clean hands and the High Court itself has observed that the order setting aside the order of cognisance was not justified, it should not have interfered with the order passed by the learned trial Judge declining to discharge the accused.
From Para 18,
The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the
High Court discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude that the accused-respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum.
A victim of a crime has as much right to get justice from the court as an accused who enjoys the benefit of innocence till the allegations are proven against him. In the case at hand, when an order of quashment of summons has been obtained by suppression, this Court has an obligation to set aside the said order and restore the order framing charges and direct the trial to go on. And we so direct.
Moti Lal Songara vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr on 16 May, 2013
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court on when can a party be set ex parte.
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994As principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the court in the grant of ex parte injunction are –
(a) Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of the improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff has acquiesced for sometime. In such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application;
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time;
(g) general principles like, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.
Wonderful case of mischief done by Mother-out-law on a Son-in-law and how royally, her cover is blown.
Read it for it’s entertainment value.
Nagaraj Kumar H.K. Vs Smt. Gangadevamma on 1 June, 2018 - Order357. Order to pay compensation
(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
In this Ex Parte Order under DV Act at Nellore Court, Judge has allowed Maintenance “on account of acts of desertion by the respondent”
Gali Lakshmi Vs Gali Venkaiah on 30 August, 2017
Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment denied maintenance to Knife who is errant and left matromonial home on her own without any justifiable reasons.
Justice BP SINGH held that
“the respondent had left her matrimonial home on her own and that she was not compelled by the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, nor had he threatened the respondent with dire consequences if she did not leave his house. There was no ground for the respondent to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture or cruelty. In sum and substance she had no justifiable reason to desert the appellant. The fact that the application for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for reconciliation, was also significant. The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was not entitled to the grant of maintenance.”
Deb Narayan Halder Vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003
This is a Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Permanent alimony given to Knife is cancelled as the perjury case against her was proved true.
Arun Kashinath Deshpande Vs Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo on 8 April, 2010
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bad Behavior has blocked 607 access attempts in the last 7 days.