Dalip singh v state of u.p. 2010 2 scc 114
WebDalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114. Landmark Judgment Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that litigants who resort to false and unethical ways to attain … WebThe appeal preferred by Shri Praveen Singh against the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad (Appellate Authority) in …
Dalip singh v state of u.p. 2010 2 scc 114
Did you know?
WebState of H.P. VS. Mast Ram AIR 2004 SC 5056: (2004) 8 SCC 660: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1165: 2004 Crl. L.J. 4973 22. Non-mention of the diameter of blood stains onthe seized clothes inthe seizure memoisof noconsequence. Gura Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2001 SC 330: 2000 AIR SCW 4439: 2001 Crl. L.J. 487: 2001 (2) SCC … WebJudgment Summarized by Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur. In a suit for possession of land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the land by way of …
WebMar 23, 2024 · By relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of UP., (2010) 2 SCC 114 and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398 it was … Webdalip singh vs. state of u p - supreme court of india - december 03, 2009. ... the state of u.p. and ors. [laws(all)-2010-10-367] [referred to] ramjeet upadhyaya vs. deputy director of ... (all)-2011-9-114] [referred to] amarjeet singh vs. district judge [laws(all)-2012-11-161] [referred to] rashid umar s/o badruddin ahmad vs. chairman lda ...
Web6. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India MANU/SC/3355/2007 : (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 WebDalip Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 July, 2010. Court No. - 54 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31096 of 2009 Petitioner :- Dalip Singh Respondent :- …
WebMay 31, 2016 · In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-.
WebSanjay Singh & Anr v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 720 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534 Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 3184 Suganthi Suresh Ku. v. Jagdeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420 East India Commercial Case, AIR 1962 SC 1893 CIT v. ioboard chesterfield.govWeb[Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC. 114; Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69. and State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. … onshilgooWebOct 18, 2012 · There's one more layer to Anderson-Burdick. A challenged law imposes an intermediate burden when the burden is somewhere between severe on the one hand and reasonable and nondiscriminatory on the other. Kishore v. Whitmer, --- F.3d ----, No. 20-1661, 2024 WL 4932749, at *2 (6th Cir. 2024). onshift website loginWebDec 3, 2009 · 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 … onshift youtubeWebDec 3, 2024 · Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009. Law Point: ... In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC … iob new account openWebState of Orissa and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 1960), Pratul Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 100), Kewal Pati (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1995 (3) SCC 600), Inder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995(3) SCC 702), State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors. (1995 (4) SCC 262) and by now celebrated decision in Shri D ... onshift workforceWebSupreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010)2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that 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. ons high frequency