TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed; summary dismissal set aside and petition restored for fresh adjudication; s.115 CPC and Arts.226/227 clarified.</h1> SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC order that had summarily dismissed the petition as not maintainable, and restored the petition to the HC for fresh ... Permanent preventive injunction - impact of the amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C. - power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - nature and scope of the writ of certiorari - High Court has summarily dismissed the petition forming an opinion that the petition was not maintainable as the appellant was seeking interim injunction against private respondents - Held that:- We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) Amendment by Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where ’a stitch in time would save nine’. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court refusing to entertain the petition filed by the appellant, holding it not maintainable, is set aside. The petition shall stand restored on the file of the High Court, to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench consistently with the rules of the High Court, depending on whether the petitioner before the High Court is seeking a writ of certiorari or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Issues Involved:1. Impact of the amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C. on the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. Scope and exercise of the writ of certiorari under Article 226.3. Scope and exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.4. Distinction between certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.5. Maintainability of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 against interlocutory orders passed by subordinate courts.Detailed Analysis:1. Impact of the Amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C. on the Power and Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:The amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C., brought by Act 46 of 1999, does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court retains its power to issue writs of certiorari and exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The curtailment of revisional jurisdiction by the amendment does not take away the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.2. Scope and Exercise of the Writ of Certiorari under Article 226:Certiorari is issued to correct gross errors of jurisdiction, such as when a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of law or principles of natural justice. The High Court, in exercising certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate court and does not re-evaluate evidence or correct mere errors of fact or law unless they are manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings.3. Scope and Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is invoked when a subordinate court assumes a jurisdiction it does not have, fails to exercise a jurisdiction it does have, or exercises its jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law, causing failure of justice or grave injustice. This power is broader than certiorari and can be exercised suo motu.4. Distinction between Certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 226 and Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 is an original jurisdiction exercised to quash proceedings of subordinate courts, while supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original but supervisory, akin to appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Certiorari is directed against the act or order of the subordinate court, whereas supervisory jurisdiction involves guiding the subordinate court on how to proceed further or afresh. Supervisory jurisdiction can also be exercised suo motu.5. Maintainability of Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 against Interlocutory Orders Passed by Subordinate Courts:Interlocutory orders passed by subordinate courts, against which the remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act, are still subject to challenge under certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court may intervene to correct errors of jurisdiction or manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings that cause grave injustice or gross failure of justice.Conclusion:The appeal is allowed, and the order of the High Court refusing to entertain the petition is set aside. The petition is restored on the file of the High Court to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench, depending on whether the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and exercise supervisory jurisdiction remains intact and is to be exercised sparingly and with caution to prevent gross failure of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
