Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)S.N. Banerji And The Kalyanpur Lime ... vs The Kuchwar Lime And Stone Company on 30 June, 1941
In S. N. Benerji v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd (in Liquidation). , observation of Lord Cairns in (1871) 3 Pc 455 to the effect "one of the first and highest duties of all courts is to take care that the act of court does no injury to any of the suitors". was approved.
Lal Bhagwant Singh vs Rai Sahib Lala Sri Kishen Das on 21 January, 1953
16. It is no doubt true that it is the duty of the Court to make restitution to a party for what he had lost as a re-suit of the decree or order passed by a Court, on the order or the decree being set aside but as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh's case, Air 1953 Sc 186 (supra) that where "it is shown that the restitution would be clearly contrary to real justice of the case" the court is under no obligation to enforce restitution. In the instant case Kuldip Singh having obtained an order for eviction against Krishna Kumar and having even got that order executed through the Court, in my opinion, restitution would be contrary to the justice of the case.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Binayak Swain vs Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi And Another on 10 December, 1965
In Binayak Swain V. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi. , it was observed, "The principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost. This obligation arises automatically on the reversal or modification of the decree and necessarily carries with it the right to restitution of all that has been done under the erroneous decree and the Court in making restitution is bound to restore the parties, so far as they can be restored, to the same position they were in at the time when the Court by its erroneous action had displaced them from."
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
Shatrughan Badri Singh vs Mange Mir Singh on 30 November, 1971
In Shatrughan Badri Singh v. Mange Mir Singh , B. C. Misra, J., observed that the possession which is given to a party in no other way but way of execution of the decree of the Court below which has been set aside, must be restored and the parties must be relegated to the same position as they were in before the execution of the decree as on the date of the suit.
1