Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Limits of Article 142: Inability to Bypass Statutory Provisions or Extend Time Limits Beyond What Is Explicitly Allowed: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal ruling dated October 4th, 2023, the Supreme Court of India has underscored the limitations on the exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that these powers cannot be used to bypass substantive statutory provisions or extend time limits beyond what is explicitly permitted by law.

The ruling came in the context of a Miscellaneous Application filed by an applicant seeking the issuance of a sale certificate from a bank. The application was found to be non-maintainable as it was filed in a previously disposed of Civil Appeal and also because it sought to extend time limits in contravention of explicit statutory rules.

Quoting from the judgment, the Court observed, "Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Limitations on the exercise of inherent powers – Inability to bypass statutory provisions or extend time limits beyond what is explicitly allowed." The Court went on to elaborate that its powers under Article 142, although broad, are not without bounds and cannot supplant the substantive law applicable to the case.

This observation is critical as it limits the future scope of Article 142, often invoked for doing "complete justice." However, as this judgment has clarified, even the Supreme Court's inherent powers can't extend to violating statutory limits or timelines.

In the ruling, the Court also deprecated the emerging trend of filing repeated Miscellaneous Applications after the final judgment has been pronounced. The Court noted that this practice has "no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged," further stating that "such an application in the disposed of Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020, to pursue its strategies and to avoid judicial adjudication in the substantive proceedings, would not be even maintainable in the eye of law."

Apex  Court clarified that the applicant was free to pursue other legal remedies, including the refund of the deposited amount from the bank, in accordance with the law.

This judgment is expected to serve as a significant precedent in limiting the scope of the Supreme Court's inherent powers under Article 142 and emphasizing the importance of respecting statutory limitations.

Date of Decision: 04 October 2023

UNION BANK OF INDIA vs  RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.

Latest Legal News