Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the national lockdown could justify delaying pronouncement of an order in a matter already reserved for orders, and whether directions were warranted to ensure timely pronouncement of such reserved orders and judgments.
Analysis: The Court reiterated that once arguments are concluded and a matter is reserved for orders, no further hearing is ordinarily required and pronouncement should not be stalled merely because of lockdown-related adjournments. It relied on the settled principle that reserved judgments ought to be pronounced within a reasonable time, noting the guidance in the Civil Procedure Code and the earlier Supreme Court directions in relation to delayed pronouncement. The Court also observed that prolonged non-pronouncement burdens litigants and the judicial system, and that the proper course is to ensure that matters marked for orders are actually pronounced rather than repeatedly adjourned.
Conclusion: The Court held that lockdown could not be treated as an impediment to pronouncement of reserved orders and issued administrative directions to ensure that such orders and judgments are pronounced in accordance with law. The petition was thus disposed of in favour of the petitioner's grievance on the issue of delayed pronouncement.