Approbate - Reprobate Blowing Hot and Cold

Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, (2018) 10 SCC 707 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1798 at page 712

12. A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands. The untenability of an inconsistent stand in the same case was considered in Amar Singh v. Union of India [Amar Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 560] , observing as follows: (SCC p. 86, para 50)

“50. This Court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions.”

Bail when not arrested during investigation

A.   Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 at page 24 has held that:

 

3. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the inveA.   Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 at page 24 has held that:

 

3. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.stigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge-sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 

FIling False Affidavit is Contempt of Court

Before proceeding with Contempt Court to verify who has to comply with the order

State Bank of Patiala v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, (2010) 4 SCC 368 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 152 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1044 at page 376

26. Before issuing any interim direction in contempt proceedings, or proposing to hold anyone guilty of contempt, the High Court should at least satisfy itself that the person to whom the notice is issued is the person responsible to implement the order. The order retiring the respondent was not passed by the Branch Manager and obviously he was not the officer who could implement the interim direction of the Chief Commissioner or the High Court.

Contempt only against party to original proceedings

Vardha Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra Kumar Razdan, (2015) 15 SCC 352 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1214 at page 357

15. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party in the writ petition wherein certain directions restraining grant of any permission to raise construction had been passed, nor the judgment passed in the writ petition attracted to the land in dispute. In the contempt petition grievance had been raised by Respondent 1 that the order passed in the writ petition had not been complied with in strict sense. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that under no circumstances, could the appellant be dealt with in contempt proceedings and no order adversely affecting it, could have been passed. Exercise of contempt jurisdiction may have very serious repercussions as basically these are quasi-criminal proceedings in nature and are resorted to punish a person who wilfully disobeys the directions issued by the court. In the instant case, even by a stretch of imagination, it cannot be assumed that the appellant could be subjected to the contempt proceedings. Before us, none of the counsel appearing for the respondent could point out as under what circumstances the Notifications dated 17-1-1997 and 10-12-1999 could be applicable to the land of the appellant. The land in dispute is located about 20 km away from the area described under those two notifications.

Relevance of preliminary file notings

Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Coop. Housing Society, (2018) 8 SCC 215 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 784 at page 225

36. Our answer to the question is "no". It is for the reasons that: first, a mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity; second, once the decision on such issue is taken and approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, it is required to be communicated to the person concerned by the State Government. In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. Such noting(s) or/and deliberation(s) are always capable of being changed or/and amended or/and withdrawn by the competent authority.

Extending Benefits to Third parties in Service Law

State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that  "if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."