Skip to main content

HCs can’t interfere with civil courts’ orders under writ jurisdiction: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that high courts cannot interfere with orders of civil courts while exercising writ jurisdiction relating to their power to quash orders of inferior courts.
"We are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari (writ issued by SC or HCs for quashing orders of inferior courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies) under Article 226 (power of High Court to issue certain writs)," a three-judge bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and justices AK Sikri and Adarsh Kumar Goel said.
The decision came on a reference sent to the CJI for an authoritative pronouncement by a two-judge bench of the apex court on whether the a writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution even against a judicial order of a civil court, questioning the court’s view taken in a 2003 case called Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander and Ors.
The two-judge bench had differed with the earlier verdict on the issue and had referred the matter to the CJI for decision by a larger bench.
In its verdict, the three-judge bench, in its verdict, said, "We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus (orders from SC/HCs to lower courts to perform statutory duty) does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows: (i) Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution;..
Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled."
Referring to various case laws, Justice Goel, writing the judgment for the bench, said, "It is necessary to clarify that expression 'judicial acts' is not meant to refer to judicial orders of civil courts... In fact, when the question as to scope of jurisdiction arose in subsequent decisions, it was clarified that orders of judicial courts stood on different footing from the quasi- judicial orders of authorities or tribunals." — PTI

Article referred: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/hcs-can-t-interfere-with-civil-courts-orders-under-writ-jurisdiction-sc/50079.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even