Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 13 October, 2003
In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors., AIR 2003 SC 4482, this Court examined this issue in
detail and held that no one shall suffer by an act of the
Court. The factor attracting applicability of restitution is
not the act of the court being wrongful or a mistake or
error committed by the court; the test is whether on
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:15:19 :::CIS
25
2025:HHC:33998
account of an act of the party persuading the court to
pass an order held at the end as not sustainable, has
resulted in one party gaining an advantage it would not
.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Pankaj Kumar Lakhanpal & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 2 March, 2023
7. Petition bearing CWP No. 6916 of 2011, titled as
Pankaj Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., 2014 SCC Online
HP 5944 alongwith other petitions, was filed by some persons
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:15:19 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:33998
assailing the decision of the Government to appoint PTA teachers
against the vacancy instead of recruiting regular teachers in
.
Chander Mohan Negi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 April, 2020
42.
rt
The PTA teachers (Category of B-II) whose services
could not be converted into contract in January, 2015 on account
of interim order passed by the Apex Court are also at no fault in
their non-conversion into contract service. After dismissal of Civil
Appeal by Apex Court in Chander Mohan's case, they have to
be treated in the manner like PTA-Teachers of B-I category.
Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical ... vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 28 April, 2017
Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., wherein it was claimed that they
were entitled for regularization in terms of the policy of the State
Government notified vide Notification dated 11.05.2018,
alongwith other contract employees, who had completed three
of
years contract service on 31.03.2018, being eligible for that, but
were not regularized for the pendency of appeals before the
rt
Apex Court preferred by Chander Mohan Negi and others and
interim order passed therein. It was claimed that instead of their
regularization w.e.f. 20.08.2020, as directed vide order dated
05.08.2020, the regularisation was to be ordered w.e.f.
Zafar Khan And Ors vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors on 31 July, 1984
"26. In our opinion, the principle of restitution takes care
of this submission. The word 'restitution' in its
etymological sense means restoring to a party on the
modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order,
what has been lost to him in execution or decree or order
or the court or in direct consequence of a decree or order
(See : Zafar Khan and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, U.P., and
Ors., . In law, the term 'restitution' is used in three
senses; (i) return or restoration of some specific thing to
its rightful owner or status; (ii) compensation for benefits
derived from a wrong done to another; (iii) compensation
or reparation for the loss caused to another. (See Black's
Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p.1315). The Law of
Contracts by John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo has
been quoted by Black to say that 'restitution' is an
ambiguous term, sometimes referring to the disgorging of
something which has been taken and at times referring to
compensation for injury done.
A. Arunagiri vs S.P. Rathinasami on 21 March, 1970
This is also on the principle that a wrong order
should not be perpetuated by keeping it alive and
of
respecting it, A.A. Nadar v. S.P. Rathinasami, (1971)
1 MLJ 220. In the exercise of such inherent power the
Courts have applied the principles of restitution to
myriad situations not strictly falling within the terms
rt
of Section 144.
Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009
29. Reliance has also been placed on the
pronouncement of the Apex Court in Amarjeet Singh vs. Devi
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:15:19 :::CIS
23
2025:HHC:33998
Ratan (2010) 1 SCC 417, by referring paras 17 to 20, which
read as under:-
Shiv Shankar And Ors. vs Board Of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. And ... on 15 November, 1993
"17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere
pendency of case in a Court of Law, as the interim order
always merges in the final order to be passed in the case
and if the writ petition is ultimately dismissed, the interim
order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be
allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting
of
interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact
that the writ is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit,
shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The
rt
maxim "Actus Curiae neminem gravabit", which means
that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, becomes
applicable in such a case. In such a fact situation the
Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a
party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or
unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the
jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised, as institution
of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage
on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the Court.
(Vide Shiv Shankar & Ors. Vs. Board of Directors, Uttar
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., 1995
Suppl.