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

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...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.