Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)
The Managing Director vs V.Murugaiyan on 22 September, 2022 cites

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [AIR 1988 SC 1531]. 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr on 15 January, 2010

In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(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) 5 SCC 65], 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. “
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 197 - M Sharma - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009

In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(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) 5 SCC 65], 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. “
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 607 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of 29/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], in clear terms held that “It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an 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 similarly wrong order. 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 30/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.26632 of 2016 etc. batch administration impossible.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 110 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next