Sometimes, In The Quest For Justice We End Up Doing Injustice.

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Sometimes, In The...

In High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2024 INSC 150, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while overruling its own three-judge bench decision, unanimously held that automatic vacation of stay orders after a lapse of six months is against the basic tenets of justice, provides undue benefit to the respondents therein and that such orders can be vacated only after application of judicial mind by the concerned Court. The bench also observed that Article 142 which grants them extraordinary powers to do complete justice cannot be used to nullify the benefits derived from stay orders, ignore the substantive right of the parties to be heard before the passage of an adverse order and that such blanket direction of automatic vacation of stay amounts to making a dent to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Courts which consequentially amounts to making a dent to basic structure as well. Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal in his separate concurring decision went on to opine that “sometimes, in the quest for justice we end up doing injustice” and the impugned three-judge bench decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation is an example of the same.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

BCCI v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Comm. Arb. Petition 4466/2020 (16th June 2021)

The Bombay High Court observed that an arbitral tribunal cannot apply public law principles on fairness and reasonableness. The Court held that “A writ court may well hold against a public body on a public law principle or by invoking Article 14; But an Arbitrator, constrained as he or she is by the contract, has... Read more » Read more »

SC Clarifies the limitation period under 468 of CR.P.C

In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), the Supreme Court held that for Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period runs from the date a complaint is filed, not when the Magistrate takes cognizance. A timely 498A IPC complaint cannot be dismissed as time-barred due to court delays. Relying on Bharat Damodar... Read more » Read more »

Anil Yashwant Karande Vs. Mangal Anil Karande, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6257

The court observed that, by submitting an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restoration of conjugal rights within the same roof, a spouse cannot claim that they would force another person to cohabit with them and treat them cruelly at the same time. Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.