Lord Denning observed in Beetham v. Trinidad Cement Ltd., (1960) 1 All ER 274, “A difference exists whenever parties are at ‘variance’; they need not be “locked in combat” or “come to blows”. It is sufficient if they are “sparring for an opening”.”

– Hon’ble Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, M/s. Premium Transmission Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, [SLP (Civil) No. 9970 of 2023] decided on 27.01.2026.

Where two come into ‘conflict’, individual interest must necessarily yield to larger public good.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. M/s. Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 929 of 2020] decided on 27.01.2026. 

_____

M/s. Scope was allotted Plot No. C-34, Patna Industrial Area, Patliputra on 09.06.2007. BIADA, vide letter dated 29.03.2008, directed M/s. Scope to stop construction. BIADA, vide letter dated 25.11.2011, proposed allotment of alternate plots in a nearby area which M/s. Scope refused. It is a matter of record, cancellation of allotment in question was necessitated by requirement of land for setting up and future expansion of an institute like IIT, a circumstance which was neither contemplated nor known at time of original allotment. There is no material on record which suggests, BIADA’s action is infected by any malice in fact.

AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, (2025) 4 SCC 111 observed, in an Intra-Court Writ Appeal, Appellate Court must restrain itself and interference is permissible only if Judgment of Learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. Judgment and Order of Single Judge was far from being wholly incorrect or perverse.

Where two come into ‘conflict’, individual interest must necessarily yield to larger public good.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. M/s. Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 929 of 2020] decided on 27.01.2026.