legal maxim

The Supreme Court was faced with a question whether or not the accused should be allowed to put in another mercy petition in front of the President after the first has been rejected. The Attorney General of India claimed that if such repetitive mercy petitions are allowed the process would become Ad Infinitum.

Reema v. Sumer Singh Salkan

In this case, the Court held that the maintenance which is mandated by the law is only to help the person in getting through their life and thus, it cannot go on for Ad Infinitum.

Dr. Sharique Ali & Ors. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

In this case the Court held that the grants that are given to the educational institutions cannot be Ad Infinitum, at one point the educational institutions will have to be stand on their own.

Debashish Sinha v. Sreejib Sinha

This case is about the eviction of a tenant which had to take place twenty-one years after 1967, according to the lease. After the stipulated period, the owner filed a case of eviction which was in the favour of the respondent. However, this case was repealed and dragged to the Supreme Court. After this order was finalised in 2009, the petitioner, who claimed to be the nephew of the original tenant filed a suit against the respondent saying that another lease was signed between the owner and the petitioner in 1980 in regards to running a shop in the rented place. This case was also dismissed by the Civil Court and then dragged on for a long period of time. The Supreme Court strongly discouraged these kinds of practises and pointed out the wrong use of the maxim of Ad Infinitum to his benefit.