2008 (12) TMI 811 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court Reinforces High Court Authority to Use Inherent Powers for Justice, Overruling Previous Judgment.

The SC set aside the impugned judgment, directing the HC to reconsider the matter on merits. It emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 of ... Maintainability of application - an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be dismissed only on the premise that an alternative remedy of filing a revision application u/s 397 of the Code is available? High Court committed a serious error in rejecting the application filed by appellants u/s 482 of the Code without entering into the merit of the matter. HELD THAT:- Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960 (3) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka 2008 [2008 (2) TMI 866 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application u/s 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application u/s 482 of the Code. Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available. Even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred u/s 397(2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available. The power of the High Court can be exercised not only in terms of Section 482 of the Code but also in terms of Section 483 thereof. Inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder. It is, thus, difficult to conceive that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of. It may be true, as has been noticed by the High Court that thereunder availability of appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court did not fall for its consideration but in our considered opinion it is wholly preposterous to hold that Adalat Prasad [2004 (8) TMI 647 - SUPREME COURT], so far as it related to invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned, did not lay down good law. The High Court in saying so did not only read the said judgment in its proper perspective; it misdirected itself in saying so as it did not pose unto itself a correct question. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The High Court is directed to consider the matter afresh on merits. The appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be dismissed solely because an alternative remedy of filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Code is available.2. The jurisdiction and scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 and Section 483 of the Code.4. The applicability of precedents and previous judgments in interpreting the inherent powers of the High Court.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal of Application under Section 482 due to Alternative Remedy under Section 397:The primary issue was whether an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could be dismissed solely on the premise that an alternative remedy of filing a revision application under Section 397 of the Code is available. The appellants argued that the High Court committed a serious error by rejecting their application under Section 482 without considering the merits, relying on its previous judgment in V.K. Jain and Ors. v. Pratap V Padode and Anr. The Supreme Court noted that the availability of a revision petition does not bar the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 482, as established in various precedents such as R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka.2. Jurisdiction and Scope of Section 482:The judgment discussed the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482, emphasizing that the inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by statute but is saved thereunder. It was noted that the power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court referenced Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. and Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni and Anr. to illustrate that the inherent power of the High Court is available even when a revision application is barred.3. Inherent Powers under Section 482 and Section 483:The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 and Section 483 were discussed in detail. Section 483 mandates the High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates to ensure expeditious and proper disposal of cases. The judgment emphasized that these powers are essential for the proper administration of justice and cannot be curtailed merely because an alternative remedy is available. The Court cited Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. to support the view that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available even when a process is issued.4. Applicability of Precedents and Previous Judgments:The judgment examined various precedents to determine the correct application of the inherent powers of the High Court. It was noted that the Bombay High Court had taken a different view in cases such as Vishwanath Ramkrishna Patil v. Ashok Murlidhar Sonar and Anr. and Keki Bomi Dadiseth v. State of Maharashtra, where the court entertained applications under Section 482 despite the availability of alternative remedies. The Supreme Court ultimately overruled the judgment in V.K. Jain, stating it did not lay down good law and directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh on merits.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter on merits, emphasizing that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, irrespective of the availability of alternative remedies under Section 397. The appeal was allowed.