M. Ramanatha Pillai vs The State Of Kerala & Anr.(With ... on 27 August, 1973
3. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in N. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Anr. , has held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)K. Rajendran & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 April, 1982
In K. Rqjendron and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
5. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, , the Supreme Court held as under:
G.S. Lamba & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 1985
7. Mr. Drauna Kaushik has further submitted that the petitioner is working under the interim order of the Court for fairly a long time. It is settled legal proposition that a party does not get any legal right by interim order. The Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order which was not maintainable and the petitioner cannot take benefit out of his own mistake by filing such a frivolous and meaningless petition as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; and T. Srinivasan v. T. Veerakuani (1998) 3 SCC 112.
T. Srinivasan vs T. Varalakshmi (Mrs) on 22 January, 1998
7. Mr. Drauna Kaushik has further submitted that the petitioner is working under the interim order of the Court for fairly a long time. It is settled legal proposition that a party does not get any legal right by interim order. The Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order which was not maintainable and the petitioner cannot take benefit out of his own mistake by filing such a frivolous and meaningless petition as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; and T. Srinivasan v. T. Veerakuani (1998) 3 SCC 112.
Shiv Shankar And Ors. vs Board Of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. And ... on 15 November, 1993
8. Further, it is settled law that 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 order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blaming 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 Curie neminem gravabit is applicable in such a case, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In such a 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 Grindleys Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner , Ram Kishan Verma v. State of U.P. ; Dr. A.K. Sircar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 (Suppl) 2 SCC 734; Shiv Shanker and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 726; Kannoriya Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board ; Ugam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997(3) RLW 1517; the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College v. Shree Kumar Tiwari ; and G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Vaishvaraiya ; and Style (Dressland) v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.
M/S. Kanoria Chemicals And Industries ... vs U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors on 10 March, 1997
8. Further, it is settled law that 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 order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blaming 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 Curie neminem gravabit is applicable in such a case, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In such a 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 Grindleys Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner , Ram Kishan Verma v. State of U.P. ; Dr. A.K. Sircar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 (Suppl) 2 SCC 734; Shiv Shanker and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 726; Kannoriya Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board ; Ugam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997(3) RLW 1517; the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College v. Shree Kumar Tiwari ; and G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Vaishvaraiya ; and Style (Dressland) v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.
Ugam Raj Bhandari vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 31 August, 1979
8. Further, it is settled law that 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 order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blaming 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 Curie neminem gravabit is applicable in such a case, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In such a 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 Grindleys Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner , Ram Kishan Verma v. State of U.P. ; Dr. A.K. Sircar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 (Suppl) 2 SCC 734; Shiv Shanker and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 726; Kannoriya Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board ; Ugam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997(3) RLW 1517; the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College v. Shree Kumar Tiwari ; and G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Vaishvaraiya ; and Style (Dressland) v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.
M/S Gtc Industries Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 March, 1998
8. Further, it is settled law that 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 order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blaming 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 Curie neminem gravabit is applicable in such a case, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In such a 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 Grindleys Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner , Ram Kishan Verma v. State of U.P. ; Dr. A.K. Sircar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 (Suppl) 2 SCC 734; Shiv Shanker and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 726; Kannoriya Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board ; Ugam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997(3) RLW 1517; the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College v. Shree Kumar Tiwari ; and G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Vaishvaraiya ; and Style (Dressland) v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.
M/S.Style (Dress Land) vs Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr on 18 August, 1999
8. Further, it is settled law that 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 order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs by getting interim order and thereafter blaming 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 Curie neminem gravabit is applicable in such a case, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one. In such a 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 Grindleys Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner , Ram Kishan Verma v. State of U.P. ; Dr. A.K. Sircar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1993 (Suppl) 2 SCC 734; Shiv Shanker and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 726; Kannoriya Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board ; Ugam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997(3) RLW 1517; the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College v. Shree Kumar Tiwari ; and G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Vaishvaraiya ; and Style (Dressland) v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.