Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Constitution

Restoration of Review application – No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law – High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.

Bysclaw

Sep 28, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL AND PRATIBHA MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 5510 of 2023

Decided on : 13-09-2023

Restoration of Review application – No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law – High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. I. H. Syed, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Deeksha Gaur, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Aniq Kadri, Advocate, Mr. Prithu Parimal, Advocate, Mr. Ankit B. Pandya, Advocate, Mr. Jigar Rawal, Advocate and Mr. Avinash Kumar Bharti, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ankit Acharya, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Bela M. Trivedi, J. – The appellants by way of present appeal have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application (for recall) No. 3 of 2019 in Regular Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997.

2. The appellants run a natural therapy center in the name and style of Vasant Nature Care Hospital and Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust. The Respondent No.1 – Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal representatives) was employed as a watchman by the Appellant No. 1 -trust to take care of the said hospitals. He was given one room to reside for discharging his duties as watchman. On 25.06.1979, the appellant-trust had relieved the said Ukaji Ramaji from his duties, he having started indulging in illegal activities. The said Ukaji preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 306 of 1979 against the appellant – trust seeking declaration that the suit premises was of his ownership. He also sought permanent injunction for restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession of the suit premises. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court, vide the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1988. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the said Ukaji preferred a Regular Civil Appeal being No. 67 of 1988 before the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). The said appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Court vide the judgment and order dated 31.03.1997, in which it was held that the said Ukaji held an irrevocable license over the suit property and such license could be terminated only after giving a months notice. The aggrieved appellants preferred the Second Appeal being No. 84 of 1997 before the High Court of Gujarat. The said Second Appeal came to be allowed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 11.10. 2012. The said Ukaji having expired pending the Second Appeal, his legal heirs had preferred a SLP being SLP(Civil) No. 1373 of 2013 before this Court. In the said SLP following order was passed by this Court on 28.01.2013 –

“Mr. Fakharuddin, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, seeks withdrawal of the special leave petition as petitioners intend to file review application before the High Court.

Special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn”.

3. As transpiring from the said order of this Court, the SLP was simply dismissed as withdrawn after recording the statement of the counsel for the respondents (i.e., SLP petitioners). However, about three years thereafter i.e., 23.03.2016, the respondents preferred MCA being No. 01 of 2016 in Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997, seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012. The said MCA for review in Second Appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court on 11.04.2016.

4. Thereafter the respondents filed another MCA being No. 02 of 2016 seeking restoration of the review application i.e., MCA No. 01 of 2016. The said MCA being No. 02 of 2016 also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the High Court on 30.11.2016, along with the application seeking condonation of delay.

5. The respondents again filed an MCA being No. 01 of 2017 seeking restoration of the MCA No. 01 of 2016. The said MCA No. 1 of 2017 also was dismissed by the High Court for non-prosecution vide the order dated 08.03.2017. Another application being MCA No. 01 of 2018 was filed by the respondents for restoration. The said MCA No. 01 of 2018 also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

6. Yet again the respondents filed another application being MCA No. 01 of 2019 for restoration, which also came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.10.2019. Thereafter, another MCA No. 03 of 2019 was filed for restoration in MCA No. 01 of 2019. The said application came to be allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order with cost of Rs.15,000/-.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. From the afore-stated state of affairs, it clearly emerges that though this Court had not granted any specific permission to file any application seeking review of the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No. 84 of 1997 in the SLP(Civil) No. 1373 of 2013, after a period of more than three years, the respondents had preferred the MCA No. 01 of 2016 seeking review of the said judgment in Second Appeal. The said MCA No. 01 of 2016 having been dismissed for want of prosecution, the respondents kept on filing one after the other Miscellaneous Civil Applications i.e., 02 of 2016, 01 of 2017, 01 of 2018 and 01 of 2019. All these applications were dismissed for want of prosecution. Under the circumstances, there was no question of allowing the MCA No. 03 of 2019 seeking restoration of MCA No. 01 of 2019. The High Court without assigning any reason whatsoever and in very casual manner has allowed the said application i.e., MCA (for restoration) No. 03 of 2019 in MCA (for restoration) No. 01 of 2019. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law, as the respondents have sought to do. The High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.

9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the High Court to the extent it allowed MCA (for restoration) No. 03 of 2019 in MCA No. 01 of 2019, is set aside, however the respondents shall deposit the cost of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the High Court. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

By sclaw

Related Post

Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Election Laws

EVM and VVPAT – Reliability – The petitioners challenged the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems, suspecting potential manipulation and demanding transparency in the voting process – The core issues revolved around the integrity of EVMs, the adequacy of VVPAT verification, and the fundamental right of voters to know their votes are correctly recorded and counted – Petitioner argued for a return to paper ballots, provision of VVPAT slips to voters, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counts, citing concerns over EVM transparency and voter confidence – The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended the EVMs’ success in ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections, highlighting technological safeguards against tampering and the benefits over paper ballots – The Court upheld the current EVM and VVPAT system, dismissing the petitions and suggesting improvements for transparency without disrupting the ongoing electoral process – The Court relied on past precedents, the ECI’s robust procedures, and the absence of cogent material evidence against EVMs to reject the petitions – The judgment referenced constitutional provisions, electoral laws, and previous rulings to support the ECI’s position and the current electoral practices – The Supreme Court concluded that the EVMs and VVPAT systems are reliable, and the petitions were dismissed based on the lack of substantial evidence against the current electoral process.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Tenders & Contracts

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, restored the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the principles of delay and latches in judicial proceedings – The Court reasoned that the writ petitioner’s delay in asserting rights and acquiescence to the Corporation’s actions warranted dismissal of the writ petition – The Court cited precedents stating that delay defeats equity and that the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary powers if there is negligence or omission on the part of the applicant – The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches, with no order as to costs.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw