Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
It is also used to justify corrections, such as recalling orders or allowing review, where procedural mistakes or delays have caused injustice ["Amko Jemford vs Prakash Chandran - Madras"], ["Sreejith Mon, S/o. Sajimon VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the intricate world of litigation, delays, errors, or interim orders can sometimes unfairly harm parties involved. What if a court's own actions cause prejudice? This is where the ancient legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit—translated as an act of the Court shall prejudice no man—steps in as a beacon of equity. Rooted in justice and good sense, this principle guides Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to restore fairness without letting procedural mishaps derail rights. But when does it apply, and what are its limits? Let's dive into this vital doctrine, drawing from key judgments.
The phrase actus curiae neminem gravabit embodies a core equitable tenet: no one should suffer due to the court's acts, errors, delays, omissions, or unsustainable orders. It's described as founded on justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law Board Of Control For Cricket, India VS Netaji Cricket Club - 2005 1 Supreme 507Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2003 7 Supreme 267Krishnaswamy S. Pd. VS Union of India - 2006 2 Supreme 235Prem Aggarwal VS Mohan Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1798State Of Punjab VS Darshan Singh - 2003 7 Supreme 474.
As noted in one ruling, The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man is an important one Krishnaswamy S. Pd. VS Union of India - 2006 2 Supreme 235. Courts invoke it to mould relief equitably, ensuring parties aren't penalized for judicial lapses. This isn't a blanket rule but an exceptional remedy requiring proof of direct prejudice caused by the court.
This post provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Originating from equity principles, the maxim complements others like lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law compels no impossibilities) Board Of Control For Cricket, India VS Netaji Cricket Club - 2005 1 Supreme 507Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2003 7 Supreme 267Krishnaswamy S. Pd. VS Union of India - 2006 2 Supreme 235Mohammed Gazi VS State Of M. P. - 2000 4 Supreme 705. Supreme Court judgments emphasize its role in preventing injustice from procedural delays or misappraisals.
For instance, Broom's Legal Maxims states: ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ – an act of court shall prejudice no man… Maharana Partap Charitable Trust VS State of Haryana - 2014 Supreme(P&H) 494. It's repeatedly upheld as a tool for courts to find out a remedy which would be just and equitable Board Of Control For Cricket, India VS Netaji Cricket Club - 2005 1 Supreme 507Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2003 7 Supreme 267.
The principle applies broadly but precisely:
Additional cases illustrate this:- In a land acquisition dispute under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, courts considered excluding High Court stay periods using the maxim Maharana Partap Charitable Trust VS State of Haryana - 2014 Supreme(P&H) 494.- For restoring complaints: To allow this application under Section 151 CPC... read along with the 'principle actus curiae neminem gravabit' Harish Kumar Dewangan vs Smt.Sarita Bajpai & Ors..
Application isn't automatic. Key requirements:- Direct Prejudice: For applying the maxim, it had to be shown that any party had been prejudiced on account of any order passed by the Court Cantonment Board, Meerut VS K. P. Singh - 2010 1 Supreme 732.- Nexus: there must be a nexus between the act of the Court complained of and the hardship or prejudice suffered by the party W. B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation LTD. VS Swadesh Agro Farming And Storage Private LTD. - 1999 7 Supreme 629.
Courts restore positions as if the prejudicial order never existed Indore Development Authority VS Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 123Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf VS M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 7 Supreme 733Prem Aggarwal VS Mohan Singh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1798. In restitution under Section 144 CPC, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party... must be neutralized Bhupinder Singh VS Unitech Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 723.
The maxim has clear boundaries to prevent abuse:- No Prejudice Proven: Inapplicable to voluntary actions, like bids during stays: Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thus got into this arrangement with open eyes Cantonment Board, Meerut VS K. P. Singh - 2010 1 Supreme 732. Interim stays don't waive state interest Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company VS Commercial Tax Officer - 1997 6 Supreme 256.- Mere Erroneous Judgments: Not for reviewing merits or per incuriam decisions without binding precedent ignored STATE OF GUJARAT VS ESSAR OIL LIMITED - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 47.- No Nexus or Voluntary Acts: Delays without harm don't qualify W. B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation LTD. VS Swadesh Agro Farming And Storage Private LTD. - 1999 7 Supreme 629; negligence bars relief Cantonment Board, Meerut VS K. P. Singh - 2010 1 Supreme 732Johri Singh VS Sukh Pal Singh - 1989 0 Supreme(SC) 440.- Statutory Limits: Can't override vested rights or extend expired lists without exceptional circumstances PRASEENA C.P Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29552Aneesh Kumar V. S. VS State of Kerala - 2020 Supreme(SC) 326.
Examples from other rulings:- No extension for expired ranked lists: The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit does not apply... when no exceptional circumstances are established PRASEENA C.P Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29552.- Ad hoc appointments don't gain validity merely from interim orders: No person can derive any advantage only on the basis of an interim order HAMIR SINGH VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, JALAUN AT ORAI - 2012 Supreme(All) 3006.- Mesne profits remain payable despite Supreme Court time extensions, as the maxim doesn't absolve wrongful possession Anil Kumar Khanna VS Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd - 2015 Supreme(Del) 1461.
To leverage this principle effectively:- Document Prejudice: Show specific harm (e.g., financial loss) directly tied to the court's act.- Seek Prompt Remedies: File for restitution (S.144 CPC), extensions (S.148 CPC), or corrections (S.152 CPC).- Evidence Nexus: Use timelines and orders to prove causation; courts reject vague claims.- Post-Interim Success: Demand refunds if you prevail after an unsustainable order.
In partition suits, omissions in decrees don't constitute fraud under the maxim Rani VS D. Sellathambi - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 1354. Similarly, for delayed payments, undertakings during reviews aren't court interim orders imposing interest Ashok Lalwani VS State Bank of India - 2024 Supreme(MP) 369.
Actus curiae neminem gravabit ensures the justice system doesn't victimize through its own flaws, promoting fairness via restitution and equitable moulding. However, it demands rigorous proof and respects statutory boundaries, as seen across Supreme Court precedents and High Court applications Indore Development Authority VS Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 123Cantonment Board, Meerut VS K. P. Singh - 2010 1 Supreme 732W. B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation LTD. VS Swadesh Agro Farming And Storage Private LTD. - 1999 7 Supreme 629.
Litigants facing court-induced harm may find solace here—generally speaking. Always seek tailored advice from legal experts.
References (select excerpts):1. Board Of Control For Cricket, India VS Netaji Cricket Club - 2005 1 Supreme 507, Indore Development Authority VS Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 123, Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2003 7 Supreme 267, etc., as cited.2. Additional: Harish Kumar Dewangan vs Smt.Sarita Bajpai & Ors., Maharana Partap Charitable Trust VS State of Haryana - 2014 Supreme(P&H) 494, PRASEENA C.P Vs STATE OF KERALA - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29552.
#ActusCuriaeNeminemGravabit #IndianLegalMaxims #CourtRestitution
Therefore, there is no scope for relying on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. Further, PSC is a constitutional body. ... Kesvankutty Nair’s case (supra) holding that actus curiae neminem gravabit cannot be relied on in those circumstances. 6. ... We need to outline the cautious application of the legal principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (the act of the court shall pre....
To allow this application under Section 151 CPC, 1908 read along with the "principle actus curiae neminem gravabit". 2. To restore the complaint. 3. ... Curiae Neminem Gravabit" and to direct the non-applicant (complainant) to file civil suit before appropriate forum. ... This is an application to recall under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code along with the "Principle Actus Curiae Neminem ....
Broom has stated the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ – an act of court shall prejudice no man….” ... 5. A three Judges’ Bench in Auto & Metal Engineers Vs. ... Treating date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of proceedings as the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code is supported by the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which means that the act of court shall prejudice no man. ... Relying upon ....
CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT" WHICH IS BASED ON EQUITY REPEATEDLY EMPHASISED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS INCLUDING ACTS WHICH COURTS WOULD NOT DO WHEN CORRECTLY APPRISED OF FACTS AND THE LAW. ... curiae neminem gravabit" which is based on equity repeatedly emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as including acts which Courts would not do when correctly apprised of facts and the law. ... C.MISC.50231/2021 IN C.MISC.NO.50231/2021 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITA....
The Court found no application of the principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit. 7. ... The contention raised in the review is that the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of Court shall prejudice no man) as enunciated in Unnikrishnan Nair G.S v. State of Kerala [2019(2) KLJ 152] is squarely applicable here. ... There can hence be no application of the principle of actus curiae neminem#HL_EN....
Anupam Traders and another) so also the principle relied upon by the petitioner i.e. actus curiae neminem gravabit. 8. ... Shri Lalwani has further submitted that because of the interim order granted by this Court in review petition, the petitioner has been deprived to withdraw the decretal amount deposited by the respondent/Bank and as such, applying the principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit, the respondent/Bank be ... The claim with regard to....
Anupam Traders and another) so also the principle relied upon by the petitioner i.e. actus curiae neminem gravabit. 8. ... Shri Lalwani has further submitted that because of the interim order granted by this Court in review petition, the petitioner has been deprived to withdraw the decretal amount deposited by the respondent/Bank and as such, applying the principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit, the respondent/Bank ... The claim with regard to ....
The phrase ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of the Court shall prejudice no one. ... (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine `actus curiae neminem gravabit'." ... An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. The law on the point is very clear.
The said contention has been raised for the first time in these Revisions while referring to the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit. ... This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "adits curiae neminem gravabit". ... "though the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" was referred to, the principle underlying the said maxim was not applied while adjudicating the issue in question in Johri Singh v. Sukh....
This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem gravabit''. ... Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner stating the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” submitted that an act of court or delay in the procedure shall prejudice no man. ... 26) In the case of Atma Ram Mittal (supra) (1988) 4 SCC 284, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of legal maxim actus curiae neminem #H....
As per the settled position of law, the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and 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. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit shall be applicable. As per the settled law, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor by the act of the Court.
The appellants drew support from the judgments of this Court in Jang Singh vs. The appellants have invoked the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. According to them, it is the duty of the Court to act equitably.
It is only an omission on the part of the parties but the said omission will not take away the right over the property or it cannot be construed that their shares were not determined and no supplementary preliminary decree was passed. (No prejudice shall be caused to anyone due to the fault of the court), such omission to carry out the amendment in the preliminary decree and final decree by no stretch of imagination amounts to fraud. In view of the legal maxim ''actus curiae neminem gravabit''
“Actus curiae neminem gravabit” and “Lex non cogit ad impossibilia”. We have to bear in mind two maxims of equity which are well settled, namely, “ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT” – The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dey vs. Tarapada Dey, (1987) 4 SCC 398 explained the above maxims as follows: “6.
It is well-settled that actus curiae neminem gravabit. No person can derive any advantage only on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court if otherwise in law he has no right to hold the post or continue in service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
