CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

Courts Must Satisfy Themselves As to the Existence of Jurisdiction, Even If Not Raised By Parties: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, October 20, 2023 - In a ruling that's expected to have far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the paramount duty of courts to verify their own jurisdiction in legal matters. The ruling came in a protracted civil appeal involving a property lease dispute between Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf, the appellant, and M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the respondents.

The Bench consisting of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra articulated, "The court must satisfy itself as to the existence of jurisdiction, even if not raised by the parties," echoing the legal maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit," which translates to "no one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court."

The litigation, which has spanned several years, started when the appellant executed a 33-year lease deed with respondent no. 2. After the expiration of the lease, the respondents refused to vacate, leading to a cascade of legal proceedings. The Wakf Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellant, but a series of appeals and revisions mired the execution of the decree.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court delved deep into the issue of jurisdiction, particularly concerning the Wakf Tribunal. The court highlighted that "Interference with jurisdiction is to be undertaken sparingly," laying stress on the heavy responsibility of a judgment-debtor to establish a decree's inexecutability.

The court also frowned upon the tactic of raising jurisdictional questions at a late stage in the proceedings. Justice Sundresh and Justice Mishra noted that such conduct contributes to the huge backlog of cases in the country. They referred to the principle of "approbate and reprobate," stating that a party "cannot accept and reject the same thing, blow hot and cold, or take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest of a transaction."

Supreme Court set aside the High Court's previous ruling and restored the decision of the Executing Court. The case has not only resolved the pending property dispute but also clarified pivotal aspects of judicial conduct and jurisdiction, likely to be cited in future legal battles.

Date of Decision: 20 October  2023

MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF  vs M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA

Latest Legal News