Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (12) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t respondent on 29-7-1983 directed the issue of permit to the petitioner. The second respondent filed appeal 265 of 1963 against the said order before the third respondent. Though the third respondent passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 29-7-1963 till the disposal of the appeal it was vacated on 4-10-1965. The petitioner in view of the cancellation of the order of interim stay was operating the vehicle in accordance with the permit granted to him by the first respondent. The appeal 265 of 1963 was subsequently allowed on 11-12-1964 setting aside the grant of permit and remanding the applications of the petitioner and the second respondent for fresh consideration by the first respondent. The petitioner filed O .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the petitioner canvassed support for his plea from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in C. D. M. T. E. C. S. Ltd. v. M.P. Conveyance. 1962 Ker LT 448 = (AIR 1962 Ker 341 FB), where it was observed thus: What is the point of time with reference to which the qualifications for a permit should be evaluated by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal? Is it the date of the application to the Regional Transport Authority? Or is it the date on which the Regional Transport Authority renders its decision? Or is it the date on which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal decides the appeal? We have come to the conclusion that the date that is material is the date on which the Regional Transport Authority deals with the applicati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licants the question reduces itself to a simple one whether the experience gained by the petitioner under a permit which has been set aside can be made use of in the same proceedings at a subsequent stage by the first respondent. 6. The rule is well known that the acts of Courts should not be allowed to work injury on the suitors. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Tang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631 at p. 1633: There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that 'mistake. This .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 144 of the Civil Procedure Code is based on the above principle. The , provision for restitution is in view or the duty of the Court to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree or such part thereof as has been varied or reversed. Lord Carson said in Jai Berham v. Koder Nath, AIR 1922 PC 269 at p. 271. Nor indeed does this duty or jurisdiction arise merely under the said section (Section 144 C. P. C.). It is inherent in the general jurisdiction of the Court to act rightly and fairly according to the circumstances towards all parties involved Where a party has obtained possession or re covered money under an erroneous decree, it will not be a restoration of status quo ante merely to rest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessing the relative merits of the applicants. This will not afford a ground for holding that the experience gained by the grant of a permit subsequently set aside, should be recognised as a qualification in favour of an applicant in the same proceeding. Since the grant of permit has been held to be wrong and it has been righted by the tribunal, by the grant being set aside, the parties must be relegated to a position as if no such grant of permit was made by the Regional Transport Authority. If that is the principle, the experience gained by an applicant due to the permit issued in pursuance to wrong order should not be used especially to the detriment, of the party at whose instance the erroneous order has been set aside. 11. The re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates