What is basic concept of irregularity in proceeding?

In order to decide the above issue, it may be appropriate
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter 
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
 As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives 
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles

of Natural Justice and fair play.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 8 of 2015
Shri K. Meghachandra Singh, 
 V
 Oinam (O) Itamani Devi,
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH


Dated: 11-08-2015
Citation: 2016 CRLJ4332 Manipur

Print Page

Whether legal proceeding means ‘proceedings only in courts’?

 The expression “legal proceeding” has been the subject
matter of consideration in the Federal Court decision in
Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd.,
AIR 1946 FC 16. In that decision Section 171 of the Indian

Companies Act, 1913 came up for consideration. That Section
reads as follows:
“When a winding-up order has been made or a
provisional liquidator has been appointed, no suit or
other legal proceeding shall be proceeded with or
commenced against the company except by leave
of the court, and subject to such terms as the court
may impose.”
16. The Federal Court held that the expression “other legal
proceedings” in Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913
comprises any proceeding initiated by the revenue for recovery
of tax dues under the Indian Income Tax Act. There is no
warrant for a narrow construction of such expression asmeaning ‘proceedings only in courts’. The Federal Court
specifically held that initiating and putting into force the
collection of arrears of income tax as arrears of land revenue by
authorities under the Income Tax Act would be a “legal
proceeding”.
17. In Binod Mills Co. Ltd. Ujjain (M.P.) v. Suresh Chandra
Mahaveer Prasad Mantri, Bombay, 1987 (3) SCC 99, this
Court had to construe Section 5 of the M.P. Sahayata Upkram
(Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978. Section 5 of the said
Adhiniyam reads as follows:
“5. Suspension of suits or other legal
proceedings against relief undertakings.—As
from the date specified in the notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 3, no suit or other legal
proceeding shall be instituted or commenced or, if
pending, shall be proceeded with against the
industrial undertaking during the period in which it
remains a relief undertaking any law, usage,
custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award,
settlement or other provisions whatsoever
notwithstanding.”
18. This Court referred in detail to the aforesaid Federal Court
decision, and further went on to hold that Section 5 would
include execution petitions that were filed to execute decrees
under the Code of Civil Procedure.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8756 OF 2016
Ludovico Sagrado Goveia 
V
Cirila Rosa Maria Pinto and Ors. .
Dated:September 6, 2016
Citation: 2016 SCCONLINESC906

Print Page

Whether Judge doing judicial work on Sunday is appropriate?

The maxim DIES DOMINICUS NON EAST JURIDICUS means Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings. It is a day which has been reserved for divine service from times immemorial. Therefore, as of practice ordinarily no judicial work or act is done on Sundays though ministerial acts may be performed or the law makers may occasionally sit and make laws even on Sundays. The above practice in principle has always been, and still is, law except, if otherwise provided by the Statute. 
The above principal is not absolute and may not be applicable to the extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by the courts for protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens or any other legal right. It may also not apply where the courts for reasons to be recorded are of the view that any delay on its part would defeat the interest of justice.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42760 of 2000 

 State Of U.P. V Ist A.D.J.& Others

 Order Date :- 24.7.2014 

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. 

Print Page