If, however, the matter is clear and the illegality is not required to be pleaded or proved as part of the cause of action and the plaintiff recanted before the illegal purpose was achieved, then, unless it be of such a gross nature as to outrage the conscience of the Court, the plea of the defendant should not prevail.” A strict view, of course, must be taken of the plaintiff’s conduct, and he should not be allowed to circumvent the illegality by resorting to some subterfuge or by misstating the facts. ![]() If the illegality be trivial or venial and the plaintiff is not required to rest his case upon that illegality, then public policy demands, the defendant should not be allowed to take advantage of the position. “The correct position in law, in our opinion, is, what one has to see is whether the illegality goes so much to the root of the matter that the plaintiff cannot bring his action without relying upon the illegal transaction into which he had entered. Hidayatullah, J (as His Lordship then was), observed thus: Kedar Nath Motani, (1960) 1 SCR 861 had an occasion to consider the question of application of the maxims ‘ ex turpi causa non oritur actio‘ and ‘ ex dolo malo non oritur actio‘. Order 18, Rule 17 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio I.Claim of Juvenility V / Review of Death Penalty XXXV.Principles of Natural Justice VIII / The Revival of Ray XCI.Referred to Larger Bench XXV Answered: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement. ![]() Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage III.Referred to Larger Bench XXXIV: Green Channel of Entry.Invito Beneficium Non Datur / The Revival of Ray XCII.The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation V. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |