Mayank Jain’s Post

The Supreme Court (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I., J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ) passed an Order dated 8 April 2024 in the matter of Manbhupinder Singh Atwal Vs. Neeraj Kumarpal Shah. It is stated that “1 The Special Leave Petitions arise in rather peculiar circumstances. We hope earnestly that this does not reflect the trend in High Courts in other parts of the country as well.” In this matter, a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was heard over 23 sittings. Judgment was reserved. Both the petition under Section 34 and the proceedings under Section 36, were heard by the same Judge and judgment was reserved. The judgment remained reserved for a period of ten months. Eventually, on 8 February 2024, the learned Single Judge observed that "these petitions were heard and reserved for judgment. However, the judgment is not pronounced for reasonable time and hence, the same are released". The Court states that “4. Releasing a case after it has been heard over a substantial period and judgment has been reserved compounds not merely the delay, but expense for parties, as well. In such a situation, parties would be required to engage counsel and incur legal fees all over again for a fresh round of hearings.” The Court is of the view that the proceedings must be heard and disposed of by the same learned Judge who passed the order dated 8 February 2024 and has requested the learned Single Judge of the High Court to take up the proceedings with all reasonable dispatch. #supremecourt #justicedelayed #justicedenied #judgmentreserved #reasonabletime Anirban Sen Adv. Sunil Kewalramani

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, overturned a 2018 ruling that set a six-month expiration on interim stay orders issued by High Courts in civil and criminal matters unless explicitly extended. This decision, originally established in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, was reversed to prevent automatic vacation of stay orders without consideration of individual case merits. Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing the majority judgment, emphasized that interim relief is essential to support final relief and should not be automatically invalidated due to time lapses. Justice Pankaj Mithal concurred, underscoring the importance of maintaining interim orders until a proper judicial order decides otherwise. The Court clarified that High Courts, as constitutional courts, possess inherent powers to manage cases within their jurisdiction, including granting and modifying interim reliefs. It stressed that automatic vacation of stays undermines judicial fairness and the right to appeal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Highlighting the principles of natural justice, the Court noted that interim orders should only be vacated after hearing all affected parties and through a judicial order. It further remarked that constitutional courts should not impose rigid timelines for case disposals, as grassroots-level judges are better positioned to assess and manage case progress. Justice Mithal added that automatic vacation of stays without a speaking order contradicts the principles of natural justice and the necessity of application-based decisions. Both justices concluded that the 2018 directive could lead to injustices, thus necessitating its reversal. #supremecourt #courts #judgment #judges #constitution #bench #justice #highcourts #criminallaw #civillaw #law #legal #lawyer

The notion of advocating for reduced pay among junior advocates in India warrants careful consideration. It's crucial to balance the need for sustainable livelihoods and industry standards. Pay scales often reflect experience, skill level, and economic conditions, and inadequate salary devalue the expertise and efforts of junior law professionals.

Delay or for that matter, inordinate delay in pronouncing the judgments is common experience. As a result, the Supreme Court had issued salutary directions way back in 1976 and again fixed period in its judgment in Anil Rai Judgment (Criminal Appeal No.389 of 1998) dated 6.8.2001 were given. In para 7 of the said judgment of 2001, it was observed that the Apex Court made an exhortation in 1976 through a judgment for expediting delivery of judgments. In para 8, it was further observed that “Quarter of a century has elapsed thereafter but the situation, instead of improving has worsened. We understand that many cases remain in area of “judgment reserved” for long period. It is thereafter in para 20 that the guidelines were provided and the period of two months for pronouncement of judgment by the High Court was fixed.  Not only that but on administrative side, the officers are to furnish every month the list of such cases where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the stipulated period. #supremecourtofindia #highcourts #judgments #reserved #pronouncement #delay #legaldeli

Delay or for that matter, inordinate delay in pronouncing the judgments is common experience. As a result, the Supreme Court had issued salutary directions way back in 1976 and again fixed period in its judgment in Anil Rai Judgment (Criminal Appeal No.389 of 1998) dated 6.8.2001 were given. In para 7 of the said judgment of 2001, it was observed that the Apex Court made an exhortation in 1976 through a judgment for expediting delivery of judgments. In para 8, it was further observed that “Quarter of a century has elapsed thereafter but the situation, instead of improving has worsened. We understand that many cases remain in area of “judgment reserved” for long period. It is thereafter in para 20 that the guidelines were provided and the period of two months for pronouncement of judgment by the High Court was fixed.  Not only that but on administrative side, the officers are to furnish every month the list of such cases where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the stipulated period. #supremecourtofindia #highcourts #judgments #reserved #pronouncement #delay #legaldeli

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was referred the decision which held that whenever a stay is granted in a civil or criminal proceeding it will automatically cease to exist at the expiry of six months in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Central Bureau of Investigation (“Asian Resurfacing Judgement”). Issues:  1. Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can order automatic vacation of all interim orders of the high court staying proceedings of civil and criminal cases on the expiry of a certain period? 2. As to if the same Article direct high courts to decide pending cases in which interim orders of stay in proceedings has been granted on a day-to-day bases within a fixed period?    Held: Overturning the Asian Resurfacing Judgement, the Supreme Court held that there cannot be an automatic vacation of stay granted by a High Court. Article 142 cannot be used to issue such blanket directions. The article does not empower the Supreme Court to ignore substantive rights of the litigants, nor can it be used to defeat the principles of natural justice. In cases where the stay has automatically been lifted due to the operation of the Asian Resurfacing Judgement, they will remain valid. While dealing with prayers for grant of interim reliefs, High Courts are to keep the following points in consideration: 1. To avoid prejudices to the opposite parties, while granting ex-parte ad-interim relief, high courts should do so for a limited duration. 2. After hearing the contesting parties, the court may or may not confirm the earlier order. 3. Once granted ad-interim reliefs can be vacated or affirmed after application of mind by the concerned court. 4. Courts should therefore, give priority to hearing prayers for interim relief where ad-interim relief has already been granted. 5. While dealing with reasons for grant of stay or interim relief, the order must show that there is sufficient application of mind to the relevant factors. 6. Sufficient opportunity of being heard must be given to the party who has prayed for interim relief, no interim order can be passed without hearing the contesting parties. 7. Even if interim relief is granted, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacation on the available grounds. In such as case, the high court must give necessary priority for vacation of the stay if the main case cannot be immediately taken up for hearing. 8. Applications for vacation of interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for inordinately long time. High Courts do not have the option of hearing the same with the main case. 9. If an ad-interim order continues for a long time the affected party can apply for vacating ad-interim relief. 10. If an application for vacating ex-parte ad-interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, the same must be taken up at the earliest. ANB Legal- India #supremecourt #constitutionallaw #law

Article 311(1) Guarantees Right To Fair Enquiry to Govt Employees: Karnataka High Court. Click the link to read more: https://lnkd.in/g4ERX4fP Visit us : https://primelegal.in/ LawRato.com PathLegal Vidhikarya Legal Services LLP Prime Legal LegalKart Adv Anik Ayantika Mondal #law #lawfirm #lawyers #legal #legalnews #legalmarketing #SC #HC #attorney #lawstudents #Courts #judgment #advocate #lawinterns

While addressing final arguments before the Hon’ble High Court in a matter challenging an execution petition order related to a maintenance claim, several key issues arose for research which are in brief as follows: 1. Whether a maintenance awarded u/s 125 CrPc would be a bar to claim maintenance in MC proceedings 2. Whether execution proceedings may be instituted to enforce an interim award. 3. Whether Writ Jurisdiction can be exercised against essentially an appeal arising out of Execution Proceedings Although the Hon’ble Judge often addresses and rejects opposing contentions, it remains crucial for the respondent’s counsel to stay updated on legal precedents and the Supreme Court’s rulings to effectively represent their client. With regard to Point No.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its decision reported in (2014) 14 SCC 452, clarified that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) constitutes a social legislation aimed at providing maintenance for individuals in need. The Court emphasized that the initiation of proceedings and the subsequent award of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC do not preclude a woman from seeking further maintenance, even if maintenance had been awarded previously. This decision helps in affirming that prior awards do not bar subsequent claims for maintenance. On point No. 2, Section 36 of CPC is quite clear and the same has to be read in conjunction with Order 21 with a view to seek execution of interim order. The section 36 clearly stipulates that the provision shall be deemed to be applicable on orders. In fact, maintainability of execution proceedings during the pendency of a suit is also upheld by several decisions of the Apex Court. On Point No.3, although the High Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction, its exercise is discretionary and generally should not supersede the availability of an alternative, effective remedy. Should an alternative or more efficacious remedy exist, and the petitioner nonetheless chooses to seek relief under writ jurisdiction, the petition must explicitly outline the reasons for not pursuing the alternative remedy. In this case, it was not necessary to address the aforementioned points, as the petitioner, under the pretext of contesting execution proceedings, essentially sought to re-litigate the same interim order that was the subject of two previously adjudicated writ petitions. The Hon’ble Judge held that the suppression of material facts alone warranted the dismissal of the petition and was inclined to impose costs but however dismissed the Writ Petition without costs. #litigation #arguments #research

Dear Linkedin Connections, Greetings of the Day, In the Case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By Lrs And ... vs Special Deputy Collector (La) on 8 April, 2024 [ 2024 INSC 286 ] Issue for Consideration : Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal against the judgment of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by some of the Legal Representatives of a deceased Claimant who died pending the reference and who were not impleaded in the reference proceeding. Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court on the Limitation Act, 1963: Harmonious Construction of Sections 3 and 5 The Supreme Court has laid down eight critical principles to harmonize Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reflecting a balance between public policy and substantial justice. Here's a concise breakdown: 1. Public Policy Foundation: The law of limitation emphasizes the need for an end to litigation, prioritizing the forfeiture of the right to remedy over the right itself. 2. Fixed Period for Rights: Rights or remedies not exercised within a designated timeframe should cease to exist, ensuring timely justice. 3. Differential Construction: Section 3 should be interpreted strictly, while Section 5 requires a more liberal, justice-oriented approach. 4. Advancing Substantial Justice: While a liberal approach is vital for justice, it must not undermine the strict limitations of Section 3. 5. Discretionary Power of Courts: Courts have the discretion to condone delays if sufficient cause is demonstrated, but this power is not absolute and can be influenced by factors such as inordinate delay and lack of diligence. 6. Individual Consideration of Relief: Relief granted to some does not automatically entitle others to the same, unless justified causes for delay are established. 7. Merits of the Case: The merits should not influence the decision to condone the delay. 8. Statutory Adherence: Delay condonation should strictly adhere to the parameters set by the statute, avoiding any disregard for legislative provisions. These principles ensure a balanced approach, promoting justice without compromising the integrity of the statutory limitations. #Law #SupremeCourt #LimitationAct #Justice #LegalFramework #PublicPolicy #JudicialDiscretion #LegalUpdates

Scope of High Courts' Powers On Automatic Vacation Of Stay Orders Clarified A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India addressed important questions regarding the scope of High Courts' power to grant and vacate interim relief. The judgment examined whether the Supreme Court can order automatic vacation of interim stay orders without applying judicial mind. It also looked at whether the Supreme Court can direct High Courts to decide pending cases within a fixed timeframe. Some key highlights from the article: • Automatic vacation of interim orders without judicial application of mind would violate natural justice. • High Courts are coordinate constitutional courts with discretionary powers under Article 226. • Supreme Court's Article 142 powers cannot undermine High Court authority or principles of fair process. This precedent serves to reinforce the High Courts' autonomy in exercising jurisdictional powers over interim relief matters. Read more on this important clarification:https://lnkd.in/gtyyfTip #InterimOrders #InterimStay #StayVacate #6months #Article 226 #Article142 #supremecourt