Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.49 seconds)Section 144 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Nagaraj And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 26 August, 1993
"15. Before we look at the facts of the case, we wish to emphasize the approach to be adopted by the Court while administering justice. This Court in S. Nagraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, at pg. 630 (para 36) observed;
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003
26. The apex court has examined the principles of restitution in case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5258. In the said reported decision, the apex court has considered a reverse case where by obtaining an interim order, some restrictions were imposed against the defendant and ultimately, the petition was dismissed and the loss caused to the defendant because of the operation of the interim orders against him and, therefore, the defendant has been compensated by the apex court by directing to pay the said amount with interest examining the principles of restitution under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been statutorily recognised and also considering a pre existing rule of justice, equity and fair play for restitution of the original situation by making or by ordering necessary payment of interest to an aggrieved party. This aspect has been examined by the apex court in a reverse case. Relevant observations made by the apex court in para 24, 25 and 26 of the said decisions (page 5270 to 5272) are reproduced as under:
Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr vs The Sr.Gelt.,Dep.Of Mines And Geology & ... on 23 January, 2004
In Karnataka Rare Earth and Anr. v. Senior Geologist Department of Mines & Geology and Anr.; [2004 (2) SCC 783, recently the apex court has considered the principles of restitution. Para 9 and 10 thereof are reproduced as under:
State Of Nagaland And Anr vs Toulvi Kibami And Anr on 16 October, 2003
That view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR. V. TOLLAVI KIBAMI AND ANR., 2003 [8] SCC 671, wherein the observations in para-2 reads as under;
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004
"In garb of clarification or modification or recall, circumvention of circulation procedure for review by means of, is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost, as per the view taken by the Apex Court in case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2004 [5] SCC 353. The Apex Court has also observed that "what cannot be directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly."
Zafar Khan And Ors vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors on 31 July, 1984
24. In our opinion, the principle of restitution takes care of this submission. The word 'restitution' in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order, what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of the court or in direct consequence of a decree or order (See Zafar Khan and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, UP and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 39). In law, the term 'restitution' is used in three senses: (i) return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status; (ii) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong done to another; (iii) compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another. (See Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, P. 1315), the Law of Contracts by John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo has been quoted by Black to say that 'restitution' is an ambiguous term, sometimes referring to the disgorging of something which has been taken and at times referring to compensation for inquiry done. "Often, the result in either meaning of the term would be the same..... Unjust impoverishment as well as unjust enrichment is a ground for restitution. If the defendant is guilty of a non tortious misrepresentation, the measure of recovery is not rigid but as in other cases of restitution, such factors as relative fault, the agreed upon risks and the fairness of alternative risk allocations not agreed upon and not attributable to the fault of either party need to be weighed". The principle of restitution has been statutorily recognized in Is. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 144 of the CPC speaks not only of a decree being varied, reversed, set aside or modified but also includes an order on par with a decree. The scope of the provision is wide enough so as to include therein almost all the kinds of variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of a decree or order. The interim order passed by the Court merges into a final decision. The validity of an interim order, passed in favour of a party, stands reversed in the event of final decision going against the party successful at the interim stage. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the successful party at the end would be justified with all expediency in demanding compensation and being placed in the same situation in which it would have been if the interim order would not have been passed against it. The successful party can demand (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim order of the Court, or (b) to make restitution for what it has lost; and it is the duty of the court to do so unless it feels that in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the restitution would far from meeting the ends of justice, would rather defeat the same. Undoing the effect of an interim order by resorting to principles of restitution is an obligation of the party who has gained by the interim order of the Court so as to wipe out the effect of the interim order passed which, in view of the reasoning adopted by the Court at the stage of final decision, the Court earlier would not or ought not to have passed. There is nothing wrong in an effort being made to restore the parties to the same position in which they would have been if the interim order would not have existed.