Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

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