B.L.HANSARIA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Krishanlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of J & K – Respondent
Judgment
HANSARIA, J.-Procedure is handmaid of justice. That is a trite saying. By the same token, procedural safeguard cannot be placed at such high a pedestal as always to knock down an order passed in violation of the same, if it be otherwise legal. This is due to legal maxim "Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto", meaning, an individual may renounce a law made for his special benefit.
2. The above is the keynote thought which would pervade in the present cases, one of which is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in CSA No. 1 of 1989 rendered on April 19, 1990 by which the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-State and set aside the judgment of District Munsif, Poonch by which a suit of the appellant challenging the order of dismissal passed on January 31, 1978 had been decreed, which order had come to be upheld by District Judge, feeling aggrieved at which the High Court had been approached by way of second appeal. Another is a writ petition filed directly in this Court making a grievance about illegal termination of service and seeking a declaration that dismissal was void and non est.
3. The High Court dismissed
Dhirendra Nath Gorai v. Shudhir Chandra Ghosh
applied : Managing Director. ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar
referred to : Union of India v. Mohd. Ramwn Khan
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
relied on : Ram Swamp v. Shikar Chand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.