Doctrines/Principles – Principle of Restitution – Pursuant to the earlier orders passed by Supreme Court, dispute w.r.t the sale consideration in respect of the land in question owned by ‘UL’ in favour of M/s. ‘DGS’, an LLP came to be confirmed in favour of ‘DGS’ – As per ‘UL’, since it was the absolute owner of the land in question therefore entitled to the entire sale consideration however, it received only a part of it and the balance amount was ordered to be paid to the respondents who were not entitled – Held: Pursuant to the earlier order(s), it appears that solely on the basis of the report submitted by Justice Dhingra Committee on the basis of an MOU and without adjudicating the rights of the respective parties, Supreme Court passed order directing to pay the balance amount to the respondents out of sale proceeds of the land sold to ‘DGS’ – There was no adjudication on the entitlement of the amount paid to the respondents which is seriously disputed – Thus, there was an obvious error and/or mistake on the part of Supreme Court – 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 – 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 – Respondents to return the amount and deposit the same with interest in the Registry of Supreme Court – actus curiae neminem gravabit. Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.