No Party Should Suffer Due To The Act Of Court, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court recently reiterated the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, namely, no party should suffer due to the act of Court.

The bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering an appeal filed by Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd.

The case pertains to e--tender notification issued by the Corporation inviting offers online from intending purchasers for advance sale of phal Kendu leaf (KL) of 2017 crop as per the 'lots' indicated in the notification. M/s Anupam Traders was the successful bidder and as per the agreement they were to deposit some security deposit before a particular day. They sought extension of the date, which was not allowed by the Corporation. The agreement was terminated at the cost and risk of the bidder. This cancellation was assailed by Anupam Traders before the High Court which issued an interim order directing it to deposit an amount of Rs.20,00,000 within one week. Later, the writ petition was withdrawn and the Corporation was directed to pay back the amount deposited by Anupam Traders. This direction was assailed before the Apex Court by the Corporation.

The Court noted that, in any event would have the right to determine the loss suffered and recover the same in accordance with law as the process to re-tender, was at the '…...cost and risk' of the Anupam Traders as stated in the notice of termination.

"" In that circumstance, when it is prima-facie indicated that due to the delay caused at the instance of the private respondents the value of the Kendu leaves had reduced, thereby causing loss, in view of legal proceedings initiated by the private respondents, the Court will have to bear in mind the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, namely, no party should suffer due to the act of Court. In such event, since the interim order was at the instance of the respondent the appellant should in our opinion be permitted to retain the amount and complete the process by providing opportunity to the private respondents."

Referring to observation made in M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., the bench also observed:

Though the said observation was made in the context of interim order being considered under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, it would be more appropriate in a writ proceedings in as much as, not only the interim prayer but the very writ petition will be entertained in the discretionary jurisdiction unlike the statutory appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 of CPC. In such circumstance, though it is not necessary that a condition is to be imposed in every case for grant of interim order, if the Court in a given case imposes the condition, the same is to be treated as being with a purpose and not as an empty formality. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment