Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing D.S. Laungia And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 September, 1992

The State Of Odisha vs Anup Kumar Senapati on 16 September, 2019

“11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P&H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 73 - A Mishra - Full Document

[State Of Odisha & Another vs . Anup Kumar Senapati & Another] on 15 October, 2019

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P & H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.
Orissa High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Hari Singh vs Director General Of Sahastra Seema Bal & ... on 10 December, 2019

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P & H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2019 20:24:52 :::HCHP 8 a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 27 November, 2019

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P & H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Manish And Others vs Lala Lajpat Rai University Of ... on 15 January, 2020

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P&H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tilak Raj Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 February, 2020

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P & H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (Vide Coromandel
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Nikku Ram vs Secretary on 6 January, 2021

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P & H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial r forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible. (Vide Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avtar Singh & Others vs Dirctor Genral Of Police & Others on 21 March, 2022

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Longia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P&H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Devinder Cheema vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 7 October, 1998

5. Shri P. S. Patwalia argued that the notice Annexure P. 2 served upon the original allottee Surinder Singh Bajaj is liable to be declared ultra vires to Rule 2(aa) read with R. 5-A of the Rules because there has been no enhancement of compensation payable to the land owners. Learned counsel argued that the respondent No. 2 cannot arbitrarily revise the price of the plot allotted to Surinder Singh Bajaj and compel him to pay the additional amount of Rs. 3,65,000/-. He strongly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in D. S. Longia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 Punj Har 54 and submitted that in view of the dismissal of the petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment of this Court should be treated as conclusive for the purpose of invalidation of the impugned demand.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - I Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next