Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

Issue Regarding Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court Matter Referred to Larger Bench – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (UIO Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. D.D. 03 March 2023) that found that an important issue raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and the effect of Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution. The issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance. The court has decided that the matter should be considered by a Larger Bench due to its significance and has directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.

Union of India is appealing against a High Court order that allowed a writ petition and set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The original writ petitioner had filed a petition in Nainital CAT Circuit Bench challenging the empanelment process for officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in the Central Government, which was based on a 360-degree appraisal system. The writ petitioner sought to quash this system, restrain the filling up of posts of Joint Secretary and above through a contract system, and direct the respondents to remove the artificial time lag created between empanelment of officers of different services.

The Union of India filed a transfer application seeking to transfer the original application filed by the writ petitioner from Nainital CAT Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The Chairman of the Tribunal ordered the transfer, but the original writ petitioner challenged this order before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Union of India opposed a writ petition filed in the High Court of Uttarakhand and challenged its territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. The Union of India argued that the case should be transferred to New Delhi since all relevant files and papers are located there and the decision to appoint Joint Secretaries on a contractual basis was made in New Delhi. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The Union of India has appealed the High Court's decision.

Supreme Court stated that the important issue raised in this appeal and that the issue involved is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts and the effect of introduction of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and the statement of the Law Minister while introducing Article 226(2) of the Constitution referred to hereinabove and that the issue involved affects a large number of employees and is of public importance, and held that the matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi should be considered by a Larger Bench. Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest so that the aforesaid issue is resolved at the earliest.

Supreme Court found that an important issue raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and the effect of Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution. The issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance. The court has decided that the matter should be considered by a Larger Bench due to its significance and has directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.

UIO Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News