Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.54 seconds)A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
In this connection, we may first refer to the Constitution Bench decision of seven Judges in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : (AIR 1988 SC 1531), in paragraph 42 of which it was stated that per incuriam are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step of the reasoning on which it is based is found on that account to be demonstratively wrong.
Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vs Gokul Narain & Anr on 10 April, 1996
34. The relevant passage in AIR 1996 SC 1819 (1) (Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur ..vs.. Gokul Narain and another) would be as follows:-
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
In case, the entire proceedings are struck down as 'non-est' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 340 (1) (Kiran Singh and others ..vs.. Chaman Paswan and others) and the parties are once again directed to go before the Execution Court and to adduce evidence from the beginning, it would certainly prejudice both the parties. The fact finding was done by the trial court. This Court had also disposed the CMA preferred against the remand order passed by the first appellate court. Both the parties have acquiesced to the proceedings initiated by the trial court and also the first appeal filed before the first appellate court and the CMA preferred before this Court on an inadvertent mistake committed by the Court. In the said circumstances, can the judgment and decree passed by the above three Courts can be held as 'non-est' in the eye of law as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is the question.
Krishna Chandra Pallai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 23 April, 1992
33. The relevant passage in AIR 1992 Orissa 261 (Krishna Chandra Pallai ..vs.. Union of India and another) would be as follows:-
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
11. The expression "per incuriam" was explained in paragraph 11 of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101: (AIR 1989 SC 38), by stating that a decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance in terms of a statute, or of a rule having the force of a statute.
The Punjab Land Development And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. ... on 28 September, 2000
In paragraph 40 of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,(1990) 3 SCC 682, it was stated that the latin expression in question means "through inadvertence". In that paragraph it was further stated that a decision can be said generally to be given per incuriam when a Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own, or when a High Court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the Supreme Court.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991
13. Finally, we may note what was stated in paragraph 40 of State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139, wherein Sahay, J. stated that in practice, per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. It was then stated that this principle was developed in relaxation of the rule of stare decisls inasmuch as "quotable in law" is avoided and ignored if it is rendered 'in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority'. "