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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...