TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the Judges of this Court. On 01.05.2020, the matter was listed for hearing the contemnors on the sentence. On that day this Court was informed that applications for recall of the judgment dated 27.04.2020 were filed. Anyhow, the matter could not be heard on 01.05.2020 due to technical reasons as connection could not be established with one of the contemnors or his counsel. After hearing the contemnors regarding the sentence on 04.05.2020, this Court found that there was no remorse or any semblance of apology shown by them. The three contemnors were sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions, this Court directed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng for the Appellant submitted that the judgment dated 27.04.2020 is without jurisdiction. Therefore, application for recall is maintainable. He submitted that this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602] clearly held that the formality of Review Application should not be insisted upon and this Court should correct the errors in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, especially in matters of violation of fundamental rights. Mr. Sorkar argued that the judgment dated 27.04.2020 has been impliedly overruled by a larger bench of this Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2020 [In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr, Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 1 of 2020]. 5. The order passed by the Registrar (Administration) lodgi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the Appellant approached this Court. This Court was of the opinion that the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in holding that the conviction shall not affect the service career of the Respondent therein. By referring to an earlier judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [(2011) 14 SCC 770] it was held that inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was available to pass suitable orders where an order is passed without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the order dated 04.05.2020 suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction. 6. Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n which it was held that applications for clarification, which are in essence and substance seeking the review of an order of the Court, are impermissible and amounted to an undesirable practice which do not deserve any consideration by the Court. 9. In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of the judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment. Permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of this Court by filing repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have far-reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice [Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161]. 10. Repeated filing of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. 14. Courts across the legal system-this Court not being an exception-are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensin....