This idea that no one should suffer from a court error or delay in proceedings was considered important for the judicial system and its application to Indian law. The same was taken up by the legal maxim “actus curiae neminem gravibite”. In P.G. Pattabi v. Mythili (2010), the Madras High Court had stated that the Latin maxim, actus legis nemini facit injuriam, could not be challenged or claimed to have been violated by the Court`s legal proceedings. In the present case, the Court had considered that the applicant`s appeals in cassation would all amount to subjecting the court to an error in the continuation of the proceedings. In such a case, it must be established whether or not the applicant suffered material damage during the enforcement proceedings. The applicants in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. The State of Kerala (2003) was convicted under sections 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 of causing M/s.Graphite India Ltd, Bangalore, to obtain something of value, namely electricity, by illegally selling it to the company and abusing its official position as a public official. which resulted in a monetary advantage for M/s.GIL of Rs.19 lakhs and odd parts. A similar sound has been heard in Scotland; and it has been well observed that a glance at the pages of Morison`s Dictionary of Decisions or other ancient accounts will show how often in ancient Scottish law questions of respect for the rights, remedies and duties of individuals were determined by direct reference to legal maxims.

I am glad that these legal maxims and their meaning have helped you. “A legal claim is a claim based on the law. It is actually a right granted to a person by the rule of law. Therefore, a person who has been legally wronged can only contest the act or omission. There may be damage or loss that is not unfair in the eyes of the law, as it does not result in a violation of the legal right or legally protected interest of the plaintiff, but this type of damage is called damnum sine injuria. The complaint must show that he has been deprived or withdrawn of a legal right and that a legally protected interest has caused him harm. He cannot be heard as a party to a list if he is not legally bound by a justiciable claim that he can defend. A fictitious or sentimental complaint may not be sufficient to confer standing on the person entitled to bring an action. There must be an offence or legal complaint that can be understood, not an unsubstantiated allegation known as a stat pro ratione voluntas. “The one who is first in time is more demanding.

A legal principle that older laws take precedence over newer ones. The literal meaning of the legal maxim is that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. The property at issue was originally registered in the name of the plaintiff`s wife in Koyalee v. Rajasthan District (2008). After her death, her brother, knowing that the deceased woman was still alive and the only legal heir, filed a lawsuit to obtain Khatedari rights, and the woman was forced to deny that she was the only legitimate heir of the registered Khatedar. The brother then transferred the land independently of the ongoing case, as he did so without first seeking permission from the court. The legal maxim actori incumbit onus probandi was applied in Kuthalinga Nadar v. D.D.Murugesan (2011) to reach a decision. The original plaintiff filed a second appeal, arguing that the second subject of the lawsuit (7 cents) was part of the first subject of the lawsuit. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, had interfered with the plaintiff`s enjoyment of the property of the second claim (7 cents). The plaintiff had the burden of proof to prove the same and, as he had not done so, the second appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court.

The legal issue that was raised before the Supreme Court of India in this case in a number of criminal proceedings concerned the unintentional administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narco-analysis, lie detector examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test with the aim of improving investigative efforts in criminal cases. Damnum sine injuria is a maxim that refers to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, but not to a violation of a person`s legal rights. This article was written by Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article provides a detailed list of legal maxims and their applications for its readers. Legal maxims with their legal meaning, interpretation, important judicial decisions using this maxim and the corresponding paragraph in which it was mentioned in said judicial statement. Access the full text of the judgment for a deeper understanding. The jury is the trier of fact and determines which are credible and which are not. It is the judge, who is the judge of the law, who decides whether or not a law can apply to a number of facts, for example by concluding that there is not enough evidence to file a criminal complaint or a particular civil case. “These two conclusions seem to follow from the diversity of cases relating to judgments rendered as evidence in civil proceedings: first, a decision of a court with concurrent jurisdiction ruling directly on this point is conclusive as an objection, obstacle or evidence between the same parties in the same case. be challenged directly in another court. The legal maxim “benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes chartarum, ut res magis valeat quam pereat” means that the construction of documents must be designed at a lower cost, so that the instrument can be used rather than perish.

Simply put, documents must be constructed in such a way that the instrument serves and does not die. 11. “The rules of interpretation will not allow paragraph 27 to be interpreted in the exception created by these words. Moreover, such a path cannot be taken without violating well-known maxims that apply to the interpretation of laws such as “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (the explicit mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another), “Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud” (when something is forbidden, everything is related to it, prohibited), and “Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo prohibetur et per obliquum” (if something is directly prohibited, it is also indirectly prohibited). Section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance must therefore be understood as permitting only the proof of statements which do not fall within the prohibition laid down in Article 122(3). 29. “Section 114 of the 1872 Act gives rise to a presumption that any official act performed by the police has been properly performed and that presumption must be rebutted. The legal maxim omnia praesumuntur rite et dowee probetur in contrarium solenniter esse acta applies, i.e. it is presumed that all actions have been performed correctly and regularly. If the acts are official and have been examined by official persons, there is a presumption that the acts have been performed properly. A legal maxim is an established legal idea, proposition, or doctrine usually expressed in Latin. Most of these Latin maxims date back to the Middle Ages in European governments that used Latin as their official language. These principles help courts around the world implement applicable laws in a fair and reasonable manner and enable them to resolve the issues they face.

These principles have no legal value, but when courts apply them when deciding legal questions, or when legislators adopt them when legislating laws, they take the form of a law and serve as a basis for informed judgments. We call it a single word or phrase to avoid detailed definitions. Take, for example, the maxim “ab initio”, which means “from the beginning” or “from the beginning of anything”, so that instead of writing an explanation, we can use the word ab initio, which is also useful in practice.