Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Violation of Procedural Aspects in Framing Substantial Questions of Law – Appeal Remand Back – Supreme Court

05 September 2024 5:27 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India brought attention to what it referred to as the "violation of procedural aspects" in the process of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals. The case involved a dispute that had reached the apex court due to alleged irregularities in the procedure followed by the High Court.

The central issue at hand was the manner in which substantial questions of law were framed during the second appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had framed these questions at the time of the second appeal hearing, without affording the parties adequate time to prepare and address these crucial questions. This violation of procedural fairness raised significant concerns.

The judgment further underscored the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, particularly in cases involving the review of concurrent findings of fact. The High Court's decision to overturn concurrent findings of fact was questioned by the Supreme Court, which stressed that such interference should only occur in exceptional circumstances and must be based on a thorough examination of the trial court's records.

In response to the procedural irregularities and the need for proper adherence to the law, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case to the High Court for reconsideration. The judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was restored to the High Court's file for a fresh examination.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the significance of ensuring a fair hearing and procedural compliance in the judicial process. The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the importance of following the correct legal procedure, particularly in the framing of substantial questions of law, to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

Date of Decision: September 21, 2023

SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKE vs SAU. SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS.      

Latest Legal News