Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr on 15 January, 2010
In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal, 2010 (1)
LLN 687 (SC) : 2010 (2) SCC 422, the Supreme Court, relying upon
its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of
Bihar v Upendra Narayan Singh, 2009 (2) LLN 754 (SC) : 2009 (5)
SCC 69, held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot
be enforced in a negative manner. The Court further held that if an
illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any
individual or a group of individuals or a Wrong Order has been
passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. Interestingly,
the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal was
subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and the
decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is also referred to in Kartick
Chandra Mondal.
State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009
In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal, 2010 (1)
LLN 687 (SC) : 2010 (2) SCC 422, the Supreme Court, relying upon
its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of
Bihar v Upendra Narayan Singh, 2009 (2) LLN 754 (SC) : 2009 (5)
SCC 69, held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot
be enforced in a negative manner. The Court further held that if an
illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any
individual or a group of individuals or a Wrong Order has been
passed by a Judicial Forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of
the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. Interestingly,
the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal was
subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and the
decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is also referred to in Kartick
Chandra Mondal.
M/S Anand Buttons Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 December, 2004
A wrong order/decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on
the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be
stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K.Bhalla v. State of M.P.
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28351 of 2017
and Flujit Kaur vs. State of Punjab.)
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
It was observed in the said decision that “in rectifying an error, no
personal inhibitions should debar the Court because no person
should suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court”. The Supreme
Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should
suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore, this Court should
not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles
of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been
done to the State (1) by Writ Petitions getting allowed at the stage of
6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28351 of 2017
admission, and (2) by getting those Orders implemented under threat
of contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that was
followed in all other cases, did not decide the Scale of Pay to be
granted for Selection and Special Grades. Hence, the Second
Contention of the Writ Petitioners is also liable to be rejected.
.
Dalbir Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 20 August, 1976
A wrong order/decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on
the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be
stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K.Bhalla v. State of M.P.
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28351 of 2017
and Flujit Kaur vs. State of Punjab.)
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.K. Bhalla vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 13 January, 2006
A wrong order/decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on
the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be
stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K.Bhalla v. State of M.P.
8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28351 of 2017
and Flujit Kaur vs. State of Punjab.)
Basawaraj S/O Sangappa Mamadapur vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 20 February, 2013
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BasaWaraj and another vs. Special
7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28351 of 2017
Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 14 SCC 81 held as follows:
1