MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petitions, Expresses 'Pain' Over Counsel's False Statement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a stern message to legal practitioners, the Supreme Court today dismissed Special Leave Petitions, stating it was "pained at the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has given a wrong statement."

The Bench, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, addressed the false claim made by the petitioner’s counsel regarding the uploading of a reasoned order by the High Court of Bombay.

The Court had called for a status report from the Registrar General of the High Court based on the counsel's statement. However, the report clarified that the reasoned order had been digitally signed and uploaded in due time. "In that view of the matter, we are pained at the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has given a wrong statement," the Court observed.

The Supreme Court was exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution when it decided to dismiss the Special Leave Petitions. "This Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and the Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed," the judgment read.

The Court also expressed discontent over the counsel's misconduct, saying such false statements led to "making observations uncalled for the practice of not uploading the reasoned orders in time."

As a result of the false statement, all pending applications related to the case stand disposed of, marking an end to this chapter of legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 01-09-2023

VIPUL PRAMODCHANDRA SHAH & ANR.  vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTR

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/01-Sep-2023-Vipul_Vs_Parmod_Chandra.pdf"]

Latest Legal News