Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Mali Harjibhai Chelabhai vs Dy. Collector & 3 on 26 June, 2015 cites

Beg Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 18 December, 2002

10. The   submission   made   by  learned   advocate,   Shri  Sheth   referring   to   the   papers   that   it   has   been  allotted   and   he   has   been   in   possession   much  emphasizing about the equities and passage of time  referring   to   the   judgments   of   the   Hon'ble   Apex  Court  reported in case of  Beg Raj Singh  (supra),  particularly   paragraph   no.6,   is   misconceived.   In  fact,   the   observations   made   in   paragraph   no.6   of  the   said   judgment   would   not   help   the   petitioner  Page 8 of 11 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/14646/2011 30/06/2015 01:52:58 AM C/SCA/14646/2011 JUDGMENT but the respondent no.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in  this judgment as made observation, which reads as  under:­ "Having heard the learned counsel for the  appellant as also the learned counsel for  the   State   and   the   private   respondent,   we  are satisfied that the appeal deserves to  be   allowed.   The   ordinary   rule   of  litigation   is   that   the   rights   of   the  panics   stand   crystallized   on   the   date   of  commencement   of   litigation   and   right   to  relief   should   be   decided   by   reference   to  the   date   on   which   the   petitioner   entered  the   portals   of   the   Court.   A   petitioner,  though entitled to relief in law, may yet  be   denied   relief   in   equity   because   of  subsequent   or   intervening   events,   i.e.,  the   events   between   the   commencement   of  litigation   and   the   date   of   decision.   The  relief   to   which   the   petitioner   is   held  entitled may have been rendered redundant  by lapse of time or may have been rendered  incapable   of   being   granted   by   change   in  law.   There   may   be   other   circumstances  which   render   it   inequitable   to   grant   the  petitioner any relief over the respondents  because of the balance tilting against the  petitioner   on   weighing   inequities   pitted  against equities on the date of judgments.  Third   party   interests   may   have   been  created or allowing relief to the claimant  may result in unjust enrichment on account  of   events   happening   in   between.   Else   the  relief may not be denied solely on account  of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in  judicial   or   quasi­judicial   forum   and   for  no fault of the petitioner. A plaintiff or  petitioner having been found entitled to a  right   to   relief,   the   Court   would   as   an  ordinary rule try to place the successful  party   in   the   same   position   in   which   he  would   have   been   if   the   wrong   complained  against   would   not   have   been   done   to   him.  The present one is such a case. The delay  in   final   decision   cannot,   in   any   manner,  Page 9 of 11 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/14646/2011 30/06/2015 01:52:58 AM C/SCA/14646/2011 JUDGMENT be attributed to the appellant. No auction  has   taken   place.   No   third   party   interest  has   been   created.   The   sand   mine   has  remained   un­operated   for   the   period   for  which the period of operation falls short  of   three   years.   The   operation   had   to   be  stopped because of the order of the State  Government   intervening   which   order   has  been   found   unsustainable   in   accordance  with stipulations contained in the mining  lease consistently with the G.O. issued by  the State of Uttar Pradesh. Merely because  a   little   higher   revenue   can   be   earned   by  the   State   Government   that   cannot   be   a  ground for not enforcing the obligation of  the State Government which it has incurred  in   accordance   with   its   own   policy  decision."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 119 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962

In  support of his submission, he has referred to and  relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court  in   case   of  Udit   Narain   Singh   Malpaharia   Vs.  Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Ors.,  reported   in  AIR   1963   SC   786  and   emphasized   the  observation made in para no.6.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 470 - Full Document
1