Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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

Similar News