Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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