Execution of the law does no injury.
- In simple terms, this maxim simply means that when the final judgment is pronounced by the court and by doing the execution of such decree if any person suffered loss due to the punishment than he/she cannot claim damages to the court. - Any harm or damages bear by alleged party cannot be considered as the injury, Why, because no damages can be recuperate from Executio legis non habet injuriam. - Thus, the one who has been punished and suffered any loss due to such punishment than the law does not provide the benefit of such injury to wrongdoer.
(i) Raj was held guilty under IPC for the offence of theft and has been sentenced for 2 years, which caused loss to Vijay so here Raj cannot claim for injury since the execution of the order of the court cannot be termed as a injury. (ii) 4 partners indulged in partnership firm, out of 4, two has been charged for the offence of abetment to suicide for the same the decree was issued by the court and such two person was held guilty. Whatever loss may arise from such wrongful act they are not liable to receive any compensation or injury to ones who has been punished.
- G.Suresh Mohan vs. S. Lilly
- The maxim was referred and it was held that the execution of decree will not work wrong.Once the judgment or decree is executed then there will be no cause in prosecuting the case before the forum and everything will be end in a debacle.
 Madras HC on 23rd July 2010
administrative action of judicial review.
It is an administrative law, which technically means administrative action of judicial review. In a way, in which the court determines who may be an applicant for judicial review. the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.
Spoken before Lawsuit is brought
• Not merely before the commencement of legal proceedings, but before even the existence of any actual controversy, concerning the subject matter of the declarations. • Brought before suit, before controversy moved. • At the time when declarant had no motive to distort the truth. Brought before suit, before controversy instituted. Also, before the controversy arose.
A delegate cannot further delegate.
This Latin maxim means that a person to whom a power is delegated cannot further delegate that power. That person cannot sub-delegate that power to someone else. No sub-delegation can be done in a contract of principle-agent without the knowledge and consent of the principle. This principle is often used in administrative or constitutional law.