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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...