Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.53 seconds)
Dr. Krantikumar Rangrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 19 January, 2016 cites

State Of U.P vs Harendra Arora & Anr on 2 May, 2001

32] In case of State of U.P. v. Harendra Kunwar6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve the dismissal of the petition as infructuous, where the Petitioners on the basis of interim order continued in service beyond 58 years and upto 60 years. The matter was remanded to the High Court with a direction to deduct the benefit reaped by the petitioners for two more years under the interim orders, in case 58 years is found to be the correct age of retirement. The relevant observations read thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 192 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2011

(emphasis supplied) 33] In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India & Ors.7, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralise any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court. When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to be conferment of additional right upon the litigating party. The stay granted by the court does not confer a right upon a party and it is granted always subject to the final result of the matter in the court and at the risk and costs of the party obtaining the stay. After 7 (2011) 8 SCC 161 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2016 00:02:57 ::: SKC 46/56 JUDGMENT -WP-3481-15- GROUP.sxw the dismissal of the lis, the party concerned is relegated to the position which existed prior to the filing of the petition in the court which had granted the stay. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system. Unscrupulous litigants must be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the court. No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 325 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009

34] In the case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Devi Ratan & Ors.8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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 orders stand nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any advantage of its own wrongs by getting an 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 maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, becomes 8 (2010) 1 SCC 417 ::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2016 00:02:57 ::: SKC 47/56 JUDGMENT -WP-3481-15- GROUP.sxw 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 466 - Full Document
1   2 Next