Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)
Anil Kumar & Ors vs Pawan Kumar & Ors on 4 October, 2018 cites

Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2011

[17]. The Concept of Finality of Judgement has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others., 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 779. The maxim 'interest Republicae ut sit finis litium' is to the effect that the litigation must end after a long hierarchy of remedies at some stage. It is necessary to put a quietus. It is rare that in an adversarial system, despite the judges of the highest court doing their best, one or more parties 8 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-10-2018 01:34:25 ::: CR No.6544 of 2018 9 may remain unsatisfied with the most correct decision. Opening door for a further appeal could be opening a flood gate which will cause more wrongs in the society at large at the cost of rights. The conclusion is that the controversy between the parties must come to an end at some stage and the judgment of the higher court must be permitted to acquire finality. It would be improper to allow the parties to file application after application in the endless process. Finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 325 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. A vs The Regional Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 19 December, 1975

It is an onerous duty and obligation of the Court to ensure undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by exercising the process of the Court, even after finality of litigation upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. Doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in the ordinary circumstances. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Court in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. vs. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 362 can be relied in the aforesaid context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 65 - S M Ali - Full Document

Green View Tea And Industries vs Collector, Golaghat, Assam And Anr. on 17 February, 2004

It is an onerous duty and obligation of the Court to ensure undue enrichment is not drawn by the losing party by exercising the process of the Court, even after finality of litigation upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. While curbing the aforesaid tendency, the Court would be fully justified in imposing punitive costs where legal process has been abused. Doctrine of stare decisis is very valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed in the ordinary circumstances. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Court in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. vs. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur (1976) 4 SCC 124 and Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat and another, 2002(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 362 can be relied in the aforesaid context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 79 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

M.Nagabhushana vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 2 February, 2011

Even the party can be bound down by constructive res judicata i.e. an issue which was known to a party not raised in proceedings. The issue cannot be raised in subsequent proceedings, the doctrine of constructive res judicata will apply. While applying the principle of res judicata, the Court should not be hampered by any technical rule of interpretation. The principle of law highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka & Others, 2012(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 807 can be relied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 168 - Full Document

Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School ... vs Smt. Rajwanti & Ors on 8 March, 2007

[20]. Perusal of the record would show that the decree- holders have sought to execute the decree dated 18.10.1985 in its letter and spirit by mandating the judgment-debtors to remove the unauthorized possession/encroachment to deliver possession of the suit property of the decree-holders. The executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, nor it can enlarge the scope of execution proceedings. The executing Court cannot grant any such relief which is not discernible in terms of decree in execution. The executing Court is bound by the terms of decree and cannot add or subtract anything from the decree on its own notion. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-10-2018 01:34:25 ::: CR No.6544 of 2018 12 vs. Rajwanti (SC) 2007(2) SCT 272 had endorsed the earlier view expressed by the Court in State of Punjab vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - A Kabir - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Krishan Dayal Sharma on 27 August, 1990

[20]. Perusal of the record would show that the decree- holders have sought to execute the decree dated 18.10.1985 in its letter and spirit by mandating the judgment-debtors to remove the unauthorized possession/encroachment to deliver possession of the suit property of the decree-holders. The executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, nor it can enlarge the scope of execution proceedings. The executing Court cannot grant any such relief which is not discernible in terms of decree in execution. The executing Court is bound by the terms of decree and cannot add or subtract anything from the decree on its own notion. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-10-2018 01:34:25 ::: CR No.6544 of 2018 12 vs. Rajwanti (SC) 2007(2) SCT 272 had endorsed the earlier view expressed by the Court in State of Punjab vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990 SC 2177.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

Pratibha Singh And Anr vs Shanti Devi Prasad And Anr on 29 November, 2002

In Pratibha Singh vs. Shanti Devi Prasad (2003) 2 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that no technical objection to defeat the decree should be entertained. The decree by competent Court after becoming final between the parties must be honoured to the hilt. [21]. The effort made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the decisions rendered by the Courts in hierarchy were vitiated on account of fraud cannot be appreciated at the stage of execution as the ingredients of fraud were never pleaded before the Courts in hierarchy, nor any evidence was led much less the evidence which is now sought to be relied in the present revision petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 105 - Full Document

Selvi vs Gopalakrishnan Nair (D) Thr. Lrs. on 15 May, 2018

[13]. In the aforecited precedent, the dispute was confined to the facts of the said case. Survey No.988 was in issue in that case. Various documents filed by the defendant in the case relating to his title to Survey No.988 were ignored by the Commissioner and the Commissioner did not follow the descriptions contained in the ancient documents filed by the defendant before the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, two Commissioners earlier appointed who had inspected the suit properties had filed the reports that the properties were not identifiable. It was only when Advocate as Commissioner was appointed and he had inspected the property Survey No.988 was noticed which was fully within the description of boundaries stated in the plaint. Since the description of the suit property did not contain Survey No.988, therefore, the second defendant did not file any appeal against the preliminary decree and the High Court by referring to the averments in the written statement as to the claim of the second defendant in Survey No.988 did not go into the question of entitlement of second defendant as there was confusion with regard to the boundaries of the suit properties. The Hon'ble Apex Court appreciated the material on record and held that the view taken by the High Court was wrong and the matter was 6 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 14-10-2018 01:34:25 ::: CR No.6544 of 2018 7 remitted to the trial Court. The aforesaid judgment was based on the evidence led by the parties in substantive litigation and not like the present one where the voluminous record which is sought to be relied upon in the present revision petition was never the subject matter of consideration before the Courts in hierarchy. Even as per the written statement filed by the defendants, a vague reply was given to para No.1 of the plaint and thereafter no evidence was led to substantiate the stand taken by the defendants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next