Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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