Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)
Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009 cites

Shiv Shankar And Ors. vs Board Of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. And ... on 15 November, 1993

15. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim 1 order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim "Actus Curiae neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised, as institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the Court. (Vide Shiv Shankar & Ors. Vs. Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 1995 Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Ram Krishna Verma Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1992

In Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1888 this Court examined the similar issue while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 656 and held that no person can suffer from 1 the act of the Court and in case an interim order has been passed and petitioner takes advantage thereof and ultimately the petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 138 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Grindlays Bank Limited vs The Income Tax Officer, 'H' Ward ... on 15 January, 1980

In Ram Krishna Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1888 this Court examined the similar issue while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 656 and held that no person can suffer from 1 the act of the Court and in case an interim order has been passed and petitioner takes advantage thereof and ultimately the petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 159 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke And Ors. vs Puna Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 24 January, 1995

In Mahadeo Savlaram Sheke & Ors. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr., (1995) 3 SCC 33, this Court observed that while granting the interim relief, the Court in exercise of its discretionary power should also adopt the procedure of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the Court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the plaint, he would adequately compensate the defendant for the loss ensued due to the order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the Court while exercising its equity jurisdiction in granting injunction is also competent to grant adequate compensation to mitigate the damages caused to the defendant by grant of injunction. The pecuniary award of damages is consequential to the adjudication of the dispute and the result therein is incidental to the determination of the case by the Court. The Court can do so in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in doing ex debito justitiae mitigating the damage 1 suffered by the defendant by the act of the Court in granting injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the action complained of in the suit. Such a procedure is necessary as a check on abuse of the process of the Court and adequately compensate the damages or injury suffered by the defendant by act of the Court at the behest of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 163 - Full Document

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003

In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4482, this Court examined this issue in detail and held that no one shall suffer by an act of the Court. The factor attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of the court being wrongful or a mistake or error committed by the court; the test is whether on account of an act of the party persuading the court to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining an advantage it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the order of the court and the act of such party. There is nothing wrong in the parties demanding being placed in the same position in which they would have been had the court not intervened by its interim order when at the end of the proceedings the court pronounces its judicial verdict which does not match with and countenance its own interim verdict. The injury, if any, caused by the act of the court shall be undone and the gain which the 1 party would have earned unless it was interdicted by the order of the court would be restored to or conferred on the party by suitably commanding the party liable to do so. Any opinion to the contrary would lead to unjust if not disastrous consequences. The Court further held :
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 377 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr vs The Sr.Gelt.,Dep.Of Mines And Geology & ... on 23 January, 2004

Similarly in Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr. Vs. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines & Geology & Anr., (2004) 2 SCC 783, a similar view has been reiterated by this Court observing that the party who succeeds ultimately is to be placed in the same position in which they would have been if the Court would not have passed an interim order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 77 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Committee Of Management, Arya Nagar ... vs Sree Kumar Tiwary & Anr on 31 March, 1997

In Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College & Anr. Vs. Sree Kumar Tiwari & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 3071, the services of the respondent therein were terminated, however, he continued to be in service on the basis of interim order passed by the High Court in the writ petition filed by him. During the pendency of the writ petition, the rules for regularization of ad hoc appointees were amended and in pursuance thereof 1 his services also stood regularized. Ultimately, the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. This Court held that his continuity in service and regularization had to be understood as it was subject to the result of the writ petition. As the writ petition was dismissed the order of regularising of his services, passed during the pendency of the writ petition, became inoperative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Dr. S.P. Kapoor Etc vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Etc on 2 November, 1981

23. An officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of other officer who had been appointed prior to him. "The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue" (vide Dr. S.P. Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 2181; Shitala Prasad Shukla vs. State of 1 U.P. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1859; and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 346).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 56 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

Shitla Prasad Shukla vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 May, 1986

23. An officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of other officer who had been appointed prior to him. "The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue" (vide Dr. S.P. Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 2181; Shitala Prasad Shukla vs. State of 1 U.P. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1859; and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 346).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 70 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 September, 2006

23. An officer cannot be granted seniority prior to his birth in the cadre adversely affecting the seniority of other officer who had been appointed prior to him. "The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue" (vide Dr. S.P. Kapoor vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 2181; Shitala Prasad Shukla vs. State of 1 U.P. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1859; and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 346).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 185 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 Next