The Maxim “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit” implies that no one should be permitted to languish or suffer over the shortcoming of the court. This is a significant Latin Maxim of Equity, which has wide application in the subordinate as well as higher legal executive of India.
This rule is viewed as major fundamental in the Indian Judiciary System and Legal Jurisprudence. This maxim in basic words intends that if any misfortune or losses is endured by a prosecutor or a litigant because of the carelessness or negligence of the Court, it results into the obligation of the Court to reestablish or restore the matter as it would have been before the mistake of the Court.
It would be applicable to refer to Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs. Versus Motilal (Dead) through LRs., (2009) 14 SCC 663, wherein the Supreme Court held that the said maxim is established upon justice and equity and helpful in the law administration. The Court observed hence:
“This well settled position need not detain us, when the second point urged by the appellants is focused. There can be no quarrel with the proposition as noted by the High Court that a party cannot be made to suffer on account of an act of the Court. There is a well recognised maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit which means an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law.”
Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit finds its application in the Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, as per which if that there is any mistake incurred because of the carelessness or negligence on behalf of the Court, it must be redressed or rectified by the Court. It would be an appropriate to refer to the Apex Court in M/S. U.P.S.R.T.C versus Imtiaz Hussain (2006 )1 SCC 380, wherein the Court clarified the proverb or the maxim as the cornerstone of Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code and consequently observed :
“The basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man. The maxim “is founded upon justice and good sense, and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law”, said Cresswell J. in Freeman v. Tranah (12 C.B. 406). An inadvertent or an unintentional mistake of the Court which may bias the reason for any party must and alone could be amended.
In the case of Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1966 SC 1047) it was held that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of computation or calculations, a clerical mistake is a mistake recorded in the form of hand-written or typing, error arising out due to a blunder or happening from unintentional slip or omission is a mistake because of reckless error with respect to the Court are liable to be corrected.
To represent this point it was expressed that for a situation where the request contains something which isn’t referenced in the decree, it would be an instance of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or exclusion is owing to the Court which may say something or exclude to say something which it didn’t intend to say or discard. No new arguments or re-contentions on merits can be engaged to work with such correction of mistakes. The Provisions can’t be summoned to modify, change or add to the conditions of the orders originally or decree to, essentially, pass a viable judicial order after the judgment in the case.
The maxim of Equity, specifically, actus curiae neminem gravabit as an act of the court shall prejudice no man, shall be pertinent. This maxim is established upon fair justice and equity in a good sense which serves a protected and certain aids for the Law Administration. Another proverb is, lex non cogit promotion impossibilia the law doesn’t constrain a man to do what he couldn’t in any way, perform.
The law and its administration is perceived to repudiate as it does in its General sayings, all intentions of convincing difficulties, and the administration of law must take on that general exemption while considering of specific cases. The applicability of the aforementioned maxim has been approved by Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey (1987 (4) SCC 398), Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1996 (2) SCC 459) and Mohammod Gazi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2000(4) SCC 342).”
It is suitable to refer to Karnataka Rare Earth and Another. v. Senior Geologist Department of Mines and Geology and Another. 2004 (2) SCC 783, wherein the Supreme Court set out the degree/ambit of the said maxim consequently:
“The doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit isn’t bound in its application just to such act of the Court which are mistaken; the doctrine is appropriately applicable to all such acts as to the regarding which it can be held that the Court could wouldn’t have ever so acted had it been accurately advised about facts and the law. It is the principle of restitution which is so attracted.”
At the point when by virtue of an act of the party, convincing the Court to pass an order, which toward the end is held as not reasonable, has brought about just acquiring a benefit which it could never have in any case procured, or the other party has experienced an impoverishment which it could never have languished however for the order of the Court and the act of such party, then the Successful party at long last held entitled for a relief, assessable concerning in terms of money at the end of the prosecution, is entitled for recompensation in similar way in which the parties would have been if the interim order of the Court could not have possibly been passed.
The successful party can demand :
- The delivery of benefits procured by the opposite party under the interim order of the Court, or
- To make compensation or restitution for what it has lost.
It would be opportune to refers to the case of the Apex Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. (2003) 8 SCC 648 wherein the Court held that the aim of the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit was not just to rectify the mistakes of the Court yet additionally to ensure that the order or decree which was mistaken up had not proved being invaluable or to be an advantageous to one party and hurtful for the other. The Court held accordingly:
That nobody will suffer by an act of the court isn’t a rule bound to a wrong act of the court; the ‘act of the court’ embraces within its compass all such act about concerning which the court may form an assessment or an opinion in any legal procedures that the court would have not so acted had it been accurately notified about facts and the law.
The element drawing in applicability of restitution isn’t the Act of the Court being improper or wrongful or a mistake or blunder committed by the Court; the test is whether on the account of an act of the party convincing the Court to pass an order held toward the end as not feasible or unsustainable, has resulted about one party acquiring a benefit which it could never have in any case corned, or the other party has experienced an impoverishment which it could not have possibly languished yet for order of the Court and the set of such party.
The quantum of compensation or restitution, contingent upon facts and conditions of a given case, may think about not just what the party barred would have made yet additionally what the party under commitment has or could sensibly or reasonably have made. There is nothing wrong in the parties demanding is being put similarly situated in which they would have been had the court not mediated by its interim order when at the finish of the procedures the court articulates its judicial decision which doesn’t coordinate with and countenanced its own interim decision. At whatever point called upon to adjudicate, the court would act in conjunction to what is the genuine, significant and substantive justice.
The injury, if any, caused by the act of the court shall be scattered and the gain which the party would have procured except if it was prohibited by the order of the court would be restored to or given on the party by appropriately commanding the party is on liability to do as such. Any opinion going against the norm would prompt unjust in the event that not the consequences of disastrous. Prosecution may result into a productive industry.
However litigation isn’t a gambling yet there is a component of chance in each suit. Deceitful prosecutors may feel urged to move toward the Courts, convincing the court to pass interlocutory orders which are in favor for them by making out a prima facie when the issues are yet to be heard and decide on merits and on the off chance that the idea of compensation is prohibited from application to interim orders, the litigant would remain to acquire by swallowing the advantages yielding out of the interim order despite the fact that the fight has been lost toward the end.
This can’t be countenanced, we are, consequently, or the opinion that the successful party at last held qualified for a help assessable concerning on terms of money toward the end of the litigation, is also entitled to be remunerated by grant of interest at a reasonable rate for the period for which the interim order of the court keeping the release of money had remained in operation.
It would be prosaic to refer to Hotel Balaji and Others. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. 88 STC 98 wherein the Supreme Court held that it is always a Judge to acknowledge that they are nothing but a mere humans and error can be made by them. But, abandoning the pride and right the wrongs is in every case more significant. In this manner, by the utilization of the saying Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, it was vital that nobody faces injustice by the negligence on part of the Court.
It would be pertinent to allude to a three Judge bench of the Apex Court in Jang Singh versus Brijlal and Others, 1966 AIR 1631 wherein it was completely held that on the off chance that if there is a mistake made by the court while conveying the information, the obligation of the litigant doesn’t end yet is shared by the court moreover. If the prosecutor or litigant follows up on the confidence or faith of that mistaken information, the Courts have no authority to consider him liable as it would consider him liable for a mistake which was caused by the actual Court itself . The Court further explained the maxim in this manner:
“It is, accordingly, very evident that assuming there was a mistake the Court and its officials generally added to it. It is no doubt a fact that a litigant must be cautious and be careful yet where a litigant goes to Court and asks the help of the Court so his commitment , under a pronouncement may be satisfied by him stringently, it is incumbent on the Court, on the off chance that it doesn’t let the litigant be, to guarantee that the correct information is furnished. If the Court in providing the information commits an error the obligation of the litigant, however it doesn’t by and large cease, is atleast shared by the Court.”
If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts can’t consider him liable for a mistake which it itself caused. There is no higher standard or principles for the direction of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should hurt a litigant and it is the bounden obligation of Courts to see that if an individual is hurt by a mistake of the Court he should be reestablished or restore to the position he would have involved however for that mistake. This is appropriately summarized in the maxim: “Actus curiae neminem gravabit”.
The said maxim was further additionally expounded by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Sarah Mathew Versus Establishment of Cardio-Vascular Diseases and Others.(2014) 2 SCC 62 wherein it was noticed subsequently:
“Taking discernment isn’t directed by the prosecution of the complaint or police report however is predicated upon application of judicial mind by the Magistrate which isn’t in that frame of mind of the individual instituting the prosecution. In the event that date of taking cognizance is viewed as pertinent in computing restrictions, the Act of the court can bias the complainant which will be against the maxim the acts of courts shouldn’t bias anyone.” [Rodger v. Comptoir D Escompte De Paris (1870-71) VII Moore N.S. 314.]
…………….This Court further held that taking cognizance is an act of the court over which the prosecuting agency or the complainant has no control. A complaint filed within the period of limitation can’t be made infructuous by an act of the court which will make prejudice to the complainant. Such a construction will be against the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, and that implies the act of court shall prejudice no man. It was likewise noticed depending on Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) that the law-making body could never have intended to put a time of constraint on the act of the court for taking cognizance of an offence to overcome the instance of the complainant.”
It would be apt to refer to Kala Bharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania – (2010) 9 SCC 437 wherein the Supreme Court clarified the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit exhaustively and observed consequently:
“No litigant can get any advantage from the simple or mere pendency of a case in a Court of Law, as the interim order generally merges into the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is at last dismissed, the interim order stands nullified naturally. A party can’t be permitted to take any advantage of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and from there on blames the Court. The fact that the case is found, at last, without any legitimacy, or the party withdrew the writ petition, shows that a negligible writ petition had been filed.”
The maxim “Actus Curiae neminem gravabit”, implies that the Act of the Court shall prejudice nobody, becomes pertinent in such a case. In such a circumstance the Court is under a commitment to fix some unacceptable done to a party by the Act of the Court. In this way, any undeserved or unjustifiable benefit acquired by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized, as the institution of suit can’t be allowed to confer any benefit on a party by the deferred activity or delayed in the action of the Court.
(vide: Dr. A.R. Sircar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others., 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 734; Shiv Shanker and Others. v. Board of Directors, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Anothers., 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 726; the Committee of Management, Arya Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur & Another. v. Sree Kumar Tiwary & Another., AIR 1997 SC 3071; GTC Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Others., AIR 1998 SC 1566; and Jaipur Municipal Corporation v. C.L. Mishra, (2005) 8 SCC 423).
In Ram Krishna Verma and Others. v. State of U.P. and Others., AIR 1992 SC 1888, this Court analyzed the issue while relying upon its prior judgment in Grindlays Bank Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta and Others., AIR 1980 SC 656 and held that no individual can suffer from the act of the Court and on the off chance that an interim order has been passed and the petitioner takes advantage thereof, and eventually the petition stands dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved for or unjustifiable benefit acquired by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralized.
A similar view has been emphasized by this Court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Others. v. Pune Civil Organization and Another., (1995) 3 SCC 33.
In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others., AIR 2003 SC 4482, this Court analyzed this issue exhaustively and held that nobody shall suffer by an act of the Court. The factors that are attracting in the pertinence of restitution isn’t the Act of the Court being wrongful or a mistake or mistake committed by the court; the test is whether an act of the party convincing the Court to pass an order held toward the end as not economical, hosts brought about one gathering acquiring a benefit it could never have in any case procured, or the other party experiencing an impoverishment which it could never have languished however over the request for the Court and the demonstration of such party.
There is nothing out of sorts in the gatherings requesting to be put similarly situated in which they would have been had the Court not mediated by its break request, when toward the finish of the procedures, the Court articulates its legal decision which doesn’t coordinate with and face its own in-between time decision. The injury, if any, brought about by the demonstration of the Court will be scattered and the increase which the party would have acquired except if it was prohibited by the request for the Court would be reestablished to or given on the party by appropriately directing the party responsible to do as such. Any assessment going against the norm would prompt crooked on the off chance that not appalling outcomes. The Court additionally held:
“…..Litigation might transform into a productive industry.
However prosecution isn’t betting yet there is a component of chance in each case. Deceitful defendants might feel urged to move toward the courts, convincing the Court to pass interlocutory orders positive for them by making out an at first sight situation when the issues are prior to be still up in the air on merits and on the off chance that the idea of compensation is prohibited from application to break orders, the disputant would remain to acquire by gulping the advantages yielding out of the break request despite the fact that the fight has been lost toward the end. This can’t be countenanced. We are, consequently, of the assessment that the fruitful party at long last held qualified for a help assessable concerning cash toward the finish of the prosecution, is qualified for be compensated……”
In Karnataka Rare Earth and Another. v. Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology and Another., (2004) 2 SCC 783, a comparative similar view has been reiterated by this Court seeing that the party who succeeds eventually is to be set similarly situated in which they would have been if the Court could never have safeguarded them by giving interim order.
The aforesaid mentioned judgments are passed on the applicability of the maxim “sublato fundamento cadit opus”, that implies on the case that an establishment is taken out, the superstructure falls.
In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a procedure is gone, all the consequential acts, actions, orders would tumble to the ground naturally and this standard principle of consequential order which is relevantly applicable to judicial and non-judicial proceedings is similarly pertinent to administrative orders. Court-can’t be utilized exclusively for interim relief.”
A significant inquiry that emerges for deliberation is whether the delay in disposal of an appeal by a Court can be considered as an action of the Court. The Supreme Court in Mithilesh Kumari and Another versus Prem Behari Khare 1989 SCR (1) 621 has completely held categorically that the delay in the Disposal of an appeal can’t be considered as an action of the court. The Court held consequently:
“Counsel for the respondent lastly submits that nobody should be allowed to suffer for fault of the court. As the maxim goes, actus curiae neminem gravabit. Nobody should suffer for an act of the court. However, the delay in disposal of an appeal cannot be termed an action of the court.”
It would be dull to refer to Neeraj Kumar Sainy and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others., (2017) SCC Online SC 25, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit doesn’t work in vacuum and can’t be taken response by the lethargic and the people who rest over their rights and legal remedies. The Supreme Court observed hence:
“It is perceptible from the aforementioned passage that the interpretation was made as per the Code and the legal maxim was taken as a core guiding principle value. Obviously, it is very very well-settled law and regulation that nobody should experience any bias or prejudice in light of the act of the court. The authorities that we have referred to deal with the different factual expositions. The legal maxim that has been taken response to can’t work in a vacuum. It needs to get the sustenance from facts.
Thus it is amply clear that the Court is under a bounden duty to ensure that nobody suffers from the fault of the Court but at the same time the litigant must be watchful & vigilant, take suitable remedy in the appointed time frame and should not sleep or take rest over his rights and privileges to invoke the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” in it’s favour.”
