Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Smt. Rani Kusum vs Smt. Kanchan Devi And Ors on 16 August, 2005
13. The said judgments of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (supra) and Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and Ors. (supra) have been further followed in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. (supra) and further another circumstance considered in the same case was that the court has extended the time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement and the date fixed by the court happened to be a holiday, therefore, the written statement was filed on the next day, then the court has considered the aspect of the matter that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. The relevant para Nos. 18 and 20 are as follows:
Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005
13. The said judgments of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (supra) and Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and Ors. (supra) have been further followed in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. (supra) and further another circumstance considered in the same case was that the court has extended the time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement and the date fixed by the court happened to be a holiday, therefore, the written statement was filed on the next day, then the court has considered the aspect of the matter that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. The relevant para Nos. 18 and 20 are as follows:
Mr. Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab vs Mr. Kumar & Ors on 18 November, 2005
13. The said judgments of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (supra) and Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and Ors. (supra) have been further followed in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. (supra) and further another circumstance considered in the same case was that the court has extended the time beyond 90 days for filing the written statement and the date fixed by the court happened to be a holiday, therefore, the written statement was filed on the next day, then the court has considered the aspect of the matter that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. The relevant para Nos. 18 and 20 are as follows:
Shreenath & Another vs Rajesh & Others on 13 April, 1998
(See Shreenath v. Rajesh .
Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987
20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit, an act of 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 what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorism, 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 , Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Mohd. Gazi v. State of M.P. (2000 4 SCC 342.
Sushil Kumar Sen vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1975
12. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive right and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in the judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar ).
Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 31 March, 2000
20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit, an act of 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 what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorism, 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 , Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Mohd. Gazi v. State of M.P. (2000 4 SCC 342.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996
20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit, an act of 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 what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorism, 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 , Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Mohd. Gazi v. State of M.P. (2000 4 SCC 342.
1