Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Prem Aggarwal VS Mohan Singh...
Checking relevance for GOA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS KRISHNA NATH A. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ...
Checking relevance for Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf VS M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS GULSHAN LAL...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 996 : The Supreme Court held that nobody should suffer owing to the mistake on the part of the court, as encapsulated in the principle ''''Actus curiae neminem gravabit''''—meaning the act of the court should not prejudice anyone. This principle was invoked to ensure that a party should not be made to suffer due to a procedural or judicial error, even if a prior appeal was dismissed in limine or there was no appeal, thereby affirming that similar matters can be considered on merits subsequently.Checking relevance for V. Senthil Balaji VS State Represented By Deputy Director...
Checking relevance for Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak VS Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation...
Checking relevance for Sreejith Mon, S/o. Sajimon VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for NIMESH DILIPBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS HITESH JAYANTILAL PATEL...
2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 503 : The court cited the landmark decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Others vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others, MANU/SC/0135/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 195, which held that a party should not suffer due to the inaction of their advocate, and emphasized that one party should not be made to suffer at the lapse of another party. The court further observed that courts should not reject petitions by a slipshod order in over-jubilation of disposal drive, and that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, especially when no negligence, inaction, or mala-fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. This principle aligns with the user''''s query regarding a Supreme Court decision on service law jurisprudence where it was held that one party cannot be made to suffer due to the lapse of another.Checking relevance for Jashbhai Bhailalbhai Patel VS Babubhai Savjibhai Bajariya...
2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 456 : The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 195 held that a party should not suffer for the lapses on the part of the learned advocate, emphasizing that one party should not be made to suffer due to the default or negligence of another party, particularly when the defaulting party has not acted in bad faith or with inaction. This principle aligns with the broader jurisprudence of preventing injustice arising from technicalities and upholding substantial justice, especially where valuable rights are at stake.Checking relevance for Kaushik Mitra VS Indira Ghosh...
2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1088 : The Supreme Court in Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, reported at AIR 1981 SC 1400 = (1981) 2 SCC 788, held that an innocent party cannot suffer injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. The Court emphasized that a party to litigation, particularly one who may be a villager or from a rural area with limited knowledge of court procedure, should not be penalized for the lapse of their advocate. The Court further observed that personal appearance of the party is not required at the time of hearing an appeal and that the justice delivery system would be disreputed if such a practice were allowed. This principle aligns with the proposition that one party should not be made to suffer due to the lapse of another party, especially when the fault lies with the legal representative.Checking relevance for Sunil Gupta VS Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. ...
2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 917 : The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq (Supra) held that it is improper for a party to suffer injustice due to the default, omission, or misconduct of their advocate. The Court emphasized that ''''the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented,'''' and concluded that ''''we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted.'''' This principle directly supports the proposition that one party cannot be made to suffer due to the lapse of another party (specifically, their legal representative), which aligns with the user''''s query about a landmark Supreme Court decision on service law jurisprudence where this view was considered.
