Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani & Anr on 4 September, 2012
“25. … But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party
trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by
crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a
substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach
a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair
advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an
opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern
on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is
weak, Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute
regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move
private parties to fight in court. The layout on litigation costs and
executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these
4
(1974) 3 SCC 554
5
P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103
15
days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved
that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume
of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic
showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever
offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the
legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this
behalf.”
Again, in Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani6 this court stated that:
State Of A.P. & Ors vs M/S. Pioneer Builders, A.P on 25 September, 2006
In State of A.P. v. Pioneer Builders7 this Court referred to the 27th Report
of the Law Commission on the Code of Civil Procedure, and held as follows:
Bhagchand Dagadusha Gujarati And Ors. vs Secretary Of State For India And Anr. on 15 August, 1923
“14. From a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 80, it is
plain that subject to what is provided in sub-section (2) thereof, no
suit can be filed against the Government or a public officer unless
requisite notice under the said provision has been served on such
6
2012 (8) SCC 781
7
(2006) 12 SCC 119
16
Government or public officer, as the case may be. It is well settled
that before the amendment of Section 80 the provisions of
unamended Section 80 admitted of no implications and exceptions
whatsoever and are express, explicit and mandatory. The section
imposes a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the court and in
the absence of compliance with Section 80, the suit is not
maintainable. (See Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy. of State for India
in Council [Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy. of State for India in
Council, 1927 SCC OnLine PC 48 : (1926-27) 54 IA 338 : AIR 1927
PC 176] ; Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India [Sawai
Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 986 : AIR
1966 SC 1068] and Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar [Bihari
Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC 627] .) The service of
notice under Section 80 is, thus, a condition precedent for the
institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer. The
legislative intent of the Section is to give the Government sufficient
notice of the suit, which is proposed to be filed against it so that it
may reconsider the decision and decide for itself whether the claim
made could be accepted or not.
Bhagchand Dagadusa vs The Secretary Of State For India on 15 August, 1923
“14. From a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 80, it is
plain that subject to what is provided in sub-section (2) thereof, no
suit can be filed against the Government or a public officer unless
requisite notice under the said provision has been served on such
6
2012 (8) SCC 781
7
(2006) 12 SCC 119
16
Government or public officer, as the case may be. It is well settled
that before the amendment of Section 80 the provisions of
unamended Section 80 admitted of no implications and exceptions
whatsoever and are express, explicit and mandatory. The section
imposes a statutory and unqualified obligation upon the court and in
the absence of compliance with Section 80, the suit is not
maintainable. (See Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy. of State for India
in Council [Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy. of State for India in
Council, 1927 SCC OnLine PC 48 : (1926-27) 54 IA 338 : AIR 1927
PC 176] ; Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India [Sawai
Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 986 : AIR
1966 SC 1068] and Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar [Bihari
Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC 627] .) The service of
notice under Section 80 is, thus, a condition precedent for the
institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer. The
legislative intent of the Section is to give the Government sufficient
notice of the suit, which is proposed to be filed against it so that it
may reconsider the decision and decide for itself whether the claim
made could be accepted or not.
Bihari Chowdhary & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 March, 1984
As observed in Bihari
Chowdhary [Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCC
627], the object of the Section is the advancement of justice and the
securing of public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation.