Whether the high court can treat suit or criminal case as pending before trial court if judgment was delivered on Roznama?

In the present case it is clear from the reports that though orally some judgments was pronounced on 14/01/2019 as quoted earlier and recorded in the Roznama, there is no such written judgment duly signed by the Presiding Officer is found in the file. The explanations were called from the concerned Presiding Officer by the Principal District and Sessions Judge. However, there is no satisfactory explanation coming forth. {Para 22}

27. Thus in sum and substance, there is no judgment and decree passed in the said civil suit by the learned Presiding Officer though recorded in the Roznama dated 14/01/2019. Such Roznama entry cannot be considered as judgment and decree as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. For the reasons recorded by us in CrWP No. 578 of 2022 dated 06/10/2022, we are constrained to allow this petition as per the prayer clause 'a'.

28. Considering the above unfortunate facts and the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the Roznama order dated 14/01/2019 in RCS No. 129 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Since there is no signed and dated judgment found on the record, we are unable to consider that the suit was disposed of on merit by the concerned Presiding Officer. Thus, we remand the said Civil Suit No. 129 of 2010 to the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona with the direction that the suit be decided after hearing both the sides and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the signed copy of this order is placed before it. It is made clear that both the parties shall co-operate with the learned Canacona Court in disposal of the said matter in the time frame fixed as above.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 418 of 2022

Hemantkumar Sadanand Naik Gaonkar and Ors. Vs. Pio Rogerio Salem Cotta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.

Author: Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

Decided On: 02.01.2023.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0016/2023

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court should avoid Shortcut approach and give findings on all issues

8.3. By way of analogy we observe that while considering Order 14 Rule 2 (as amended w.e.f. 01.02.1977), this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties and Ors., MANU/SC/1376/2019 : (2020) 6 SCC 557, has observed and held that after the amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977, though Order 14 Rule 2(2) enables the court to decide the issue of law as a preliminary issue in case the same relates to (i) jurisdiction of court or (ii) a bar to suit created by any law for the time being in force, a departure has been made in amended provision whereby now it mandates the court to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. It is further observed that intendment behind this departure is to avoid remand in an appealable case for deciding other issues.

8.4. Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1345-1346 and 1347-1374 of 2022

Decided On: 22.03.2022

The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore Vs.

The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0344/2022

Print Page

Whether court can decide application for rejection of plaint till Judgment of case?

A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects. We are, therefore, of the view that for the afore-mentioned reasons, the common order under challenge is liable to be set aside and we, accordingly, do so. We remit the cases to the trial court for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the basis of the averments in the plaint, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law.

Supreme Court of India

Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002

Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, Arijit Pasayat

Print Page

When correction of error in judgment/decree arising from “accidental slip or omission” is permissible?

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 152 and Or. 20 R. 18(2): Correction of error in judgment/decree arising from “accidental slip or omission” is permissible when error should be apparent on face of record and should not depend on discovery thereof by going into merits of the case. In order to determine whether court while carrying out amendment/correction acted within scope of powers under S. 152, pleading of parties, contents of decree and corrections made, have to be examined.

Supreme Court of India

Srihari (Dead) Through Lr. Smt. ... vs Syed Maqdoom Shah & Ors on 16 September, 2014

Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Prafulla Chandra Pant

   Citation;(2015)1 scc607

Print Page

Whether Anonymous Complaint against judicial officer should be entertained?

While exercising control over the subordinate judiciary under the Constitution, the High Court is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest, strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries. If complaints are entertained on trifling matters relating to judicial orders which may have been upheld by the High Court on the judicial side, and if the judicial officers are under constant threat of complaints and enquiry on trifling matters, and if the High Court encourages anonymous complaints, no judicial officer would feel, secure, and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for the Rule of law. It is imperative that the High Court should take steps to protect its honest judicial officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. [409E-G] In this case, the resolution passed by the Bar Association against the appellant was wholly unjustified and the complaints made by others were motivated which did not deserve credit. Even the Vigilance Judge did not record any finding that the appellant was guilty of any corrupt motive or that he had not acted judicially. [409H; 410A] The orders of the High Court and the State Government were set aside. The appellant was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and arrears of salary and allowances and other benefits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana And ... on 26 May, 1988

Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1395, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 396

Bench: Singh, K.N.

BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

Print Page

Government employees can file applications -RTI

SCA/6584/2010 2/2 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6584 of 2010

=================================================

BENJAMIN SATYAPPA SHANKESHWAR - Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)

================================================= Appearance :

MR SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,

Mr.NIRAG PATHAK, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE

SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.

=================================================

CORAM :

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI

Date : 01/09/2010

ORAL ORDER

Print Page

PIO is not a mere post office

Delhi High Court

J.P. Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 2011

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 4th August, 2011

+ W.P.(C) 7232/2009

J.P. AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anurag Goel, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rishi Dewan, Adv. for R-4.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 16 th January, 2009 of the Central Information

Commission (CIC) imposing penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on

the petitioner of `12,500/- deductable in two installments of `6,250/- each from the salary of the

petitioner starting from 3rd March, 2009. The petition though came up before the Court first on 2

nd March, 2009 but no stay was granted. The petitioner on 14th December, 2009 informed that

Print Page

IT returns of estranged wife 2 be given to Husband

IT returns of estranged wife 2 be given to Husband


Central Information Commission
Appeal No.35/IC(A)/06
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00108
Dated, the 8th May, 2006

Name of the Appellant: Sh. Bhagat Singh, House No.5879, Block No.4, Street No.5, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005.

Name of the Public Authority :Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, 3rd floor, ARA Center, E-2 Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.

DECISION

Grounds of Appeal:

The appellant had filed a complaint dated 24.9.2003 against Smt Saroj Nimal, his wife, regarding Tax Evasion on Rs.10 lakhs to the Department of Income Tax (Investigation). On 10.11.2005 the appellant filed an application under RTI Act asking for the details of the action taken by the Department of Income Tax on the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by him. The CPIO vide his letter dated 10.1.2006 informed the appellant that the information could not be made available as it was exempt u/s 8 (1)(j), being personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The appellant filed his first appeal on January 21, 2006 to the Appellate Authority, which upheld the decision of the CPIO vide his order dated 3.2.2006.

Print Page

Hindu Marriage Act

Sanjeev Vyankatesh Ranade vs Meghna Sanjeev Ranade on 21 July, 2011

 Click Here for full text judgement

Print Page