Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.91 seconds)
Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 March, 2007 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Major General Madan Lal Yadav [Retd.] on 22 March, 1996

In Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), (1996) 4 SCC 127, the accused-army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential condition for the commencement of trial and when the accused did not make himself available, he could not be allowed to raise a contention that proceedings were time-barred. This Court referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edn.) p. 191 wherein it was stated;
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 225 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Mritunjoy Pani And Another vs Narmanda Bala Sasmal And Another on 14 March, 1961

In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court in Mrutunjay Pani & Another v. Narmada Bala Sasmal & Another, AIR 1961 SC 1353, wherein it was held by this Court that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim 'Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet' (No party can take undue advantage of his own wrong).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 63 - R Dayal - Full Document
1