Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Mafatlal Industries LTD. VS Union Of India...
1997 1 Supreme 684 : The State can recover excess money paid by a petitioner if the burden of the duty was passed on to another person. According to the judgment, a refund claim can only succeed if the petitioner establishes that they have not passed on the burden of the duty to a third party. If the burden was passed on, the claimant cannot claim a refund as they have not suffered real loss or prejudice. The real loss is suffered by the person who ultimately bore the burden, and it is only that person who can legitimately claim refund. In such cases, it is just and appropriate that the amount is retained by the State, as there is no immorality or impropriety in preventing unjust enrichment of the petitioner. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable to the State, which represents the people of the country.Checking relevance for Thomas Daniel VS State Of Kerala...
2022 5 Supreme 71 : The state cannot recover excess payments made to a petitioner if the excess was due to a mistake in interpreting rules or orders, and not due to any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee. In such cases, recovery is not allowed, especially when the employee has retired or is in a disadvantaged position. The court emphasized that recovery would cause undue hardship, particularly to pensioners, and that the employer''''s right to recover is outweighed by the employee''''s right to avoid iniquitous or arbitrary recovery. In the present case, recovery of increments granted during service and paid after retirement, after ten years, was held unjustified and set aside.Checking relevance for GOA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS KRISHNA NATH A. (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ...
Checking relevance for State of Punjab VS Rafiq Masih (White Washer)...
2015 1 Supreme 671 : The employer can recover excess payments made to an employee by mistake, but only if the recovery would not be iniquitous or arbitrary. Recovery would be iniquitous and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if it would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee. Specifically, recovery is not permissible in the following cases: (1) where the excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order; (2) where the employee belongs to Class-III or Class-IV (Group ''''C'''' or ''''D'''') service; (3) where the employee is retired or due to retire within one year of the recovery order; or (4) where the employee was wrongfully required to perform duties of a higher post and was paid accordingly. In such cases, the employee is exempted from refunding the excess amount, even if the payment was made by mistake, due to the hardship it would cause.Checking relevance for Jogeswar Sahoo VS District Judge, Cuttack...
2025 4 Supreme 145 : The state cannot recover excess payments made to an employee if the excess was not due to any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, but rather due to the employer''''s wrong interpretation of a rule or order, or a mistaken calculation of pay/allowance. Such recovery is not allowed in equity, especially when the employee has retired, has not been given an opportunity to be heard, and the recovery would cause undue hardship. In this case, the excess payment was made to appellants (Stenographers) in 2017, recovery was ordered in 2023, and they had already retired in 2020. The court held that recovery is unsustainable and set aside the recovery orders.Checking relevance for Mekha Ram VS State of Rajasthan...
2022 4 Supreme 347 : Yes, the State can recover the excess amount paid to the original writ petitioners. The Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reserving liberty in favor of the State to recover the excess amount paid pursuant to a wrong order of the Single Judge, which was subsequently set aside by the Division Bench. The excess amount was paid due to a court order, not due to any mistake by the State, and no one can be permitted to take benefit of a wrong order that has been set aside by a higher forum. The amount must be recovered in thirty-six equal monthly installments deducted from the petitioners'''' salary, starting from April 2022.
