Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.46 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, the maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit an act of the Court shall prejudice no man, shall be applicable. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia - the law does not compel a man to do which he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. The applicability of the aforesaid maxims has been approved by this Court in Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey (1987) 4 SCC 398 : (AIR 1987 SC 2195) and Gursharan Singh v. NDMC, (1996) 2 SCC 459 : (1996 AIR SCW 749 : AIR 1996 SC 1175)."
Cochin State Power And Light ... vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 1965
"It is not the jurisdiction of the court to enter into the arena of the legislative prerogative of enacting laws. However, keeping in mind the fact that the rule in question is only a subordinate legislation and by declaring the rule ultra vires, as has been done by the High Court, the Court would be only causing considerable damage to the cause for which the Municipality had enacted this rule and following the rule of interpretation laid down by Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. case and with a view to iron out the creases in the impugned rule which offends Article 14 Rule 7 has to be interpreted as follows :
Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 November, 1990
In the case of Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs. Union of India and Others - 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 102, it is held that :
Ashok Kapil vs Sana Ullah [Dead] And Others on 25 September, 1996
In the case of Ashok Kapil vs. Sana Ullah (Dead) And Others - (1996) 6 SCC 342, the Apex Court has held, "Such a liberal interpretation can be afforded to prevent a wrongdoer from taking advantage of his own wrong. The maxim : "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity. Hence, in the normal course, the respondent cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of his own wrong."
Union Of India And Anr vs Ashok Kumar Mitra on 24 February, 1995
In the case of Union of India And Another v. Ashok KUmar Mitra - (1995) 2 SCC 768, it is held that "The respondent, having himself contributed to the delay in the disposal of the trial, in no small measure, cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and take shelter under "speedy trial" to escape from prosecution."
Anwar Hasan Khan vs Mohammad Shafi And Ors. on 19 October, 2001
In the case of Anwar Hasan Khan vs. Mohd. Shafi And Others - (2001) 8 SCC 540, the Apex Court has held :
East India Hotels Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 15 November, 2000
In East India Hotels Ltd. And Another vs. Union of India And Another - (2001) 1 SCC 284, it is held that "An Act has to be read as a whole, the different provisions have to be harmonised and the effect has to be given to all of them. Reading the said provisions together, it is clear that food and drink would fall within the definition of "goods" under Section 2(g). There would be a transfer of property in the same by a hotelier in favour of the customer. Section 2(l) clearly provides that sale would mean any transfer of property in goods by one person to another."
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... vs Nilaybhai R. Thakore And Another on 13 October, 1999
In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And Another vs. Nilaybhai R. Thakore And Another - (1999) 8 SCC 139, the Supreme Court has held that as under :