He who seeks equity must do equity.

The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. “Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”. An action at law is not a game of chess, therefore, a litigant cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions. It is one of those fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings. (Vide: Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677; and Amar Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69).
 The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a Court of Equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another. (Vide: The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852; Nooruddin v. (Dr.) K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; and Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236).

Supreme Court of India

V.Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs Administrative Officer & Ors. on 18 September, 2012

Print Page

Person deriving benefit of document and later questioning very validity of that document impermissible

S. 115 - Estoppel - Person deriving benefit of document and later questioning very validity of that document -
Impermissibility of - Held, when a person knowingly accepts benefits of a document subsequently he is estopped from
denying validity or binding effect of such document - Such plea would be contrary to principles of right and good
conscience, (2012) 12 SCC 133-L 
V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133

Print Page

Distinction between failure to sign and verify pleading and failure to supply attested copy of pleading to other side

 Legally there is a distinction between failure to sign and verify the original copy of the election petition filed in the Court and failure to attest the copy served on the respondent to be a true copy of the election petition. While the latter failure falls within the scope of Section 81(3), the earlier failure falls under sub-Section (1)(c) and sub- Section(2) of Section 83. While the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 81 obligates the High Court to dismiss the election petition, the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 83 is not expressly declared to be fatal to the election petition. The said distinction is explained by this Court in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another = (1996) 1 SCC 169 paras 20 and 21T.

Supreme Court of India

Ajay Maken vs Adesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. on 11 December, 2012

Print Page

Procedure is only a handmaiden, and not mistress of justice.

 In the second part of the eighteenth objection (in para 5 of the I.A.), the appellant herein pleaded vaguely that the Registry of the High Court gave an opportunity “to the petitioner to rectify the mistakes/remove objections, which could not have been given”. The High Court by the impugned Judgment records that “the fact that the Registrar of this Court had initially notified some deficiencies which were cured, after which the matter was placed before the Court, which took cognizance of the petition, would mean that the election petitioner was absolved of any fault”.

14. Both, the pleading as well as the finding of the High Court, are as vague as the vagueness could be. Exposition of law without first identifying the relevant “facts in issue”, in my opinion, does not promote the cause of justice. The Appeal, insofar as the first issue identified by us in para 5 of the Judgment, is required to be allowed and remanded to the High Court for an appropriate consideration of the objections raised by the appellant herein, in accordance with law.

Supreme Court of India

Ajay Maken vs Adesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. on 11 December, 2012

Print Page