Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002. Case: Dalip Singh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shambhu Prasad Singh, Prashante Jha and Manjula Gupta, Advs and For Respondents: Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv., L.K. Pandey, S.K. Dwivedi, Amit Singh, Sushma Verma, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Krishan Singh Chauhan, K.C. Lamba, Chand Kiran and Kartar Singh, Advs. |
| Judges | G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act - Section 11A; Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 9, 9(2A), 10, 10(1), 10(2), 11 and 11(2); Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 - Section 10(2); Limitation Act - Section 5; Constitution of India - Articles 32, 136 and 226 |
| Citation | 2010 (1) AWC 762 (SC) , JT 2009 (15) SC 201 , 2009 (14) SCALE 473 , (2010) 2 SCC 114 |
| Judgement Date | December 03, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
-
For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral Dart of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do no hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
-
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making the following observations:
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 and 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 to 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 characterizes 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.
-
In Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. 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.
-
In G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and Ors. v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr. 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 11A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by the High Court. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed:
Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for 'such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.
-
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. JT 1993 (6) SC 331, the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
-
In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012. Case: Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
...lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 7 SCC Even as ......
-
Writ Petition No. 2996 (M/S) of 2004. Case: Dwarika Prasad Agarwal & Brothers Vs Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others, (2009) 3 SCC 141. 7. In the case of Dalip Singh v. State of War Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the appellant tenure-holders is amazing. The appellants efforts ......
-
O.M.P.(COMM)--17/2016. Case: S. P. GUPTA & ORS Vs. VLS FINANCE LTD.. High Court of Delhi (India)
...the pleadings, a long line of decisions relied upon including SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 , Dalip Singh v. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114 , Pundlik Jalam Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Media Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State 2010 (174) DLT 214 23. A further......
-
W.P. Nos. 17122, 24119/2013 (GM-CC). Case: 1. Sri. G. Manjunath, 2. M. Venkataramana Vs 2. State of Karnataka and Others, [Alongwith W.P. Nos. 20025/2013 & 20026/2013 (GM-CC)], 2. G. Manjunath, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Vidhana Soudha and Tahasildar Mulbagal. High Court of Karnataka (India)
...in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd.-vs.-State Bank of India [ (2007) 8 SCC 449]; in the case of Dalip Singh-vs.-State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2010) 2 SCC 114]; in the case of Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. & Ors.-vs.-Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. [ (1997) 5 SCC 7......
-
Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012. Case: Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
...lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 7 SCC Even as ......
-
Special Appeal No. 303 of 2007. Case: State of U.P. and Ors. Vs Daya Sagar and Ors., [Alongwith Special Appeal No. 1198 of 2008]. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114, and Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 728 the Supre......
-
Writ Petition No. 2996 (M/S) of 2004. Case: Dwarika Prasad Agarwal & Brothers Vs Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others, (2009) 3 SCC 141. 7. In the case of Dalip Singh v. State of War Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the appellant tenure-holders is amazing. The appellants efforts ......
-
O.M.P.(COMM)--17/2016. Case: S. P. GUPTA & ORS Vs. VLS FINANCE LTD.. High Court of Delhi (India)
...the pleadings, a long line of decisions relied upon including SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 , Dalip Singh v. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114 , Pundlik Jalam Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Media Project (2008) 17 SCC 448 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State 2010 (174) DLT 214 23. A further......