Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.22 seconds)Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs Union Of India And Others on 5 November, 1973
We would
also like to reproduce the following words of wisdom
expressed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who spoke for the
Bench, in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India and Ors., 1974 3
SCC 554.
Madras Port Trust vs Hymanshu International By Its ... on 3 January, 1979
"32. Further, this Court has frowned upon the practice of the
Government to raise technical pleas to defeat the rights of the
citizens in Madras Port Trust vs. Hymanshu International
(1979) 4 SCC 176, wherein it was opined that it is about time
that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of
not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating
legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the
citizens. Para 2 from the said case reads thus :- (SCC p.177)
"2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we
should proceed to determine whether the claim of the
respondent was barred by Section 110 of the Madras
Port Trust Act (2 of 1905). The plea of limitation based
on this section is one which the court always looks upon
with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority
like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take
up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is
high time that governments and public authorities adopt
the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the
purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do
what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a
government or a public authority takes up a technical
plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well-
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr vs Mathias Oram & Ors on 19 July, 2010
(Vide: Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v. Mathias
Oram & Ors., 2010 11 SCC 269; and Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2011
AIR(SC) 1989)
P.P. Abubacker vs The Union Of India (Uoi) on 18 August, 1971
In Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India [(1974) 3 SCC
554] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted with
approval, the following statement (from an earlier decision of
the Kerala High Court (P.P. Abubacker vs. Union of India,
AIR 1972 Ker 103, AIR pp. 107-08, para 5)]:(SCC p.562,
para 25)
"25.......'5. ....."The State, under our Constitution, undertakes
economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and
inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals.
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 lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the
State and its agencies is so staggering these 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 show-downs 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. I am not indulging in any
judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on
Urban Improvement Trust,Bikaner vs Mohan Lal on 30 October, 2009
12. The aforesaid litigation policy was seen as a silver lining
to club unnecessary and uncalled for litigation by this Court in
the matter of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal,
2010 1 SCC 512 in the following manner:
Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Parmar & Ors on 27 November, 2012
"39. The appellant was wrongfully excluded from the process of
appointment on account of an illegal and arbitrary grant of
moderation of marks. The Government in its Order dated 22-
12-2010 cancelled the appointment of three District and
Sessions Judges who were granted benefit of moderation.
Badharudeen was earlier assigned general category seat but
since the appellant was higher in merit, Badharudeen was
pushed down and adjusted against OBC category seat at Sl.
No. 42. Badharudeen has not challenged his pushing down at
Sl. No. 42 either before the learned Single Bench of the High
Court or before the Division Bench of the High Court or even
before this Court. Therefore, as respondent, he cannot be
permitted to dispute the grant of seniority to the appellant at Sl.
No. 41. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel is not
helpful to the arguments raised as the appellant therein sought
seniority as direct recruit from the time when the vacancies
occurred. To raise such an argument, reliance was placed
upon judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. N.R.
Bhag Singh & Ors vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh, Through ... on 14 August, 1985
In a three Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh & Ors. v.
Union Territory of Chandigarh through LAC, Chandigarh [(1985)
3 SCC 737]: the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: (SCC p. 741, para 3)
"3... The State Government must do what is fair and just to
the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases
where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest
or where the State Government would otherwise be
irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat
the legitimate and just claim of the citizen."
Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani & Anr on 4 September, 2012
In Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani and another (2012)
8 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the approach of
the Government to litigate and observed as under:-
Punjab State Power Corp.Ltd.Patiala ... vs Atma Singh Grewal on 17 September, 2013
In Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and
others vs. Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 666, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court noted the facts that Courts are burdened with
unnecessary litigation primary for the reason that the Government or
Public Sector Undertakings etc. decide to litigate even when there is
no merit in the claim. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant
observations, which read thus:-