Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Indore Development Authority VS Shailendra (Dead) Through LRs. ...
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 123 : The principle ''''no party can take advantage of his own wrong'''' is a settled legal doctrine, also expressed as ''''commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet'''', which means convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. This principle is applied in land acquisition cases to prevent litigants from benefiting from their own delay, litigation, or misuse of the legal process. It bars a party from obtaining unjust advantages through their own wrongful conduct, such as filing stale claims or using interim orders to delay acquisition proceedings. The doctrine is reinforced by the maxim ''''acta curiae neminem gravabit'''' (the act of the court shall not prejudice anyone) and is binding in interpreting Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.Checking relevance for Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf VS M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. ...
2023 7 Supreme 733 : The legal principle ''''no party can take advantage of his own wrong'''' is embodied in the Latin maxim ''''commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet''''. This principle was affirmed in the case of Mrutunjay Pani v. Narmada Bala Sasmal [AIR 1961 SC 1353], where the Supreme Court observed that no one can be allowed to benefit from his own wrongful act. The principle is also applied in cases where a party has filed a frivolous or iniquitous suit to delay proceedings, and the court has held that such a party cannot derive any benefit from the mere pendency of the case. The maxim is further reinforced by the doctrine of ''''actus curiae neminem gravabit'''' (no one shall be prejudiced by an act of court), which requires courts to neutralize any unfair advantage gained by a party through the court''''s own acts or through the party''''s own wrongful conduct, especially when the litigation is ultimately found to be without merit.Checking relevance for Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. ...
2020 5 Supreme 194 : The principle ''''no party can take advantage of his own wrong'''' is encapsulated in the Latin maxim ''''commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet''''. This maxim was applied in the context of land acquisition proceedings where litigation was found to be frivolous or filed with the intent to delay, and it was held that such parties cannot benefit from their own wrongful acts. The Court emphasized that no one should be allowed to gain convenience from their own wrongdoing, particularly in cases involving delay tactics or baseless litigation.Checking relevance for Binod Pathak VS Shankar Choudhary...
2025 6 Supreme 181 : The legal principle that ''''no party can take advantage of his own wrong'''' is a settled principle of law, affirmed in the judgment as a sound legal maxim. It is stated that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong, and that a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong. This principle is closely linked to the maxim ''''nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria'''', which confirms that no one can benefit from their own wrongdoing. Courts are duty-bound to ensure that dishonesty or abuse of the legal process is curbed, and that no one is allowed to gain unjust or undeserved gains through wrongful conduct. The courts must ensure that justice, equity, and fairness prevail, and that advantage falling from wrong will not be validated by the court of law.Checking relevance for Municipal Committee Katra VS Ashwani Kumar...
2024 4 Supreme 399 : The principle ''''no party can take advantage of his own wrong'''' is a well-established legal maxim, recognized as ''''nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria'''' in Latin, which means ''''no man can take advantage of his own wrong''''. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, (1996) 4 SCC 127, where it was held that a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong. The Court emphasized that it is a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. This maxim is recognized in both law and equity and applies across all branches of legal procedure.
