Special Leave Jurisdiction Should Not Be Used To Bypass HC Except In Specific Situations: SC

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

The Supreme Court has recently observed in a May 16 judgment that parties would not be allowed to invoke special leave jurisdiction to bypass remedies available at the High Court level, except in two specific situations.

The Bench of Justices AS Bopanna & Dipankar Datta clarified that as a matter of practice, the apex court entertains Special Leave Petitions without the High Court being approached.

The order stated that “The power to grant leave under Article 136 itself being discretionary, this Court would not allow a party invoking the ‘special leave’ jurisdiction to bypass the remedy available at the level of the High Court without the two situations, as aforesaid, being satisfied.”

Therefore, the Court heard a contempt petition to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the top court order being passed in SLP.

The SLP put quietus to the dispute between the parties while marginally enhancing the compensation granted to respondents who were ordered for handing over possession of the disputed property.

During the pendency of the execution petition, the High Court directed the court’s execution for deciding the objections of respondents.

Based on this direction, the executing court found the objections maintainable and assumed it necessary to adjudicate on their own merits after the recording of evidence.
The daughter & son of the original plaintiff appealed against this interim order and also sought the removal of resistance by the respondents.

However, the issue before the top court didn’t intervene with the common order under appeal which was called for.

According to the peculiar facts, it was stated that there was at least a need for an inquiry by the court’s execution.

Thus, the top court dismissed the petitions, stating that there was no reason for it to interfere since the order of the executing court wasn’t challenged before the High Court.

Further, the court recorded that, “It is made clear that the Executing Court shall proceed to deal with the application of the Appellants under Rule 97 of Order 21 of the CPC together with the objections raised by the Respondents on their own merits and without being influenced by any observation made in this order which has been necessitated only for disposal of the present appeals.”

Meera Verma

Recent Posts

Anurag Kashyap Sparks Outrage Over His ‘Vulgar’ Response To Netizen Who Criticised His Post About Caste Discrimination

Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap has landed in controversy after an alleged social media comment targeting the…

15 hours ago

SC Turns Down Dowry Harassment Complaint Against Husband’s Kin

The Supreme Court has dismissed a dowry harassment case filed by a woman against her…

16 hours ago

SC Upholds Conviction Of Army Man For Firing At Colleagues Over Food Complaint

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an army constable who fired at his…

17 hours ago

Madras HC Orders Case Against Tamil Nadu Minister Over Vulgar Joke On Hindus

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu police to file an FIR against…

17 hours ago

Murder Of Minor In Seelampur Sparks Outrage; Political leaders React

17-year-old boy named Kunal was stabbed in the Seelampur area of Delhi on Friday. He…

18 hours ago

“Judiciary Can’t Be A Wing Of Govt”: Ex-ASG Aman Lekhi

Former Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aman Lekhi has emphasized that while the government holds the…

18 hours ago