Friday, March 5, 2021
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Some litigants suppressing facts to get relief, taking advantage of handicaps in virtual court hearings

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

New Delhi: While most courts in the country are in virtual mode amid this pandemic and physical hearings are a rarity and mostly urgent matters are being heard over video conferencing, one set of litigants are using this as an opportunity to manage relief by suppressing facts.

This has become possible, because the courts are sparsely manned – not all have been allowed to report for duty for safety reasons – and those present are unable to cross check all facts from their records.

Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court expressed its serious concern when it spotted two bail petitions in the same FIR by the same petitioner. Several incidents of manipulation of facts came to light from districts courts and other high courts, but none could believe that the same fate would befall the Supreme Court.

One came across a case of land disputes, in the case: “Calcutta Landing And Shipping Company Limited Vs Late Manbasa Devi through Legal Representatives (LR’s)”. In this case the legal heirs challenged a December 3, 2019 order of a single judge-bench of the Calcutta High Court, wherein Calcutta Landing And Shipping Company Limited filed a caveat, making the LRs of Manbasa Devi party, and that caveat was registered in the Supreme Court on December 24, 2019.

Interestingly Calcutta High Court by an order dated 01.03.2019 allowed the substitution of legal heirs of Manbasa Devi and that order was challenged by Calcutta Landing And Shipping Company Limited in Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) No.12905/2019 and the said SLP was dismissed.

When the virtual courts started functioning in the Supreme Court, the Calcutta Landing And Shipping Company Limited, knowingly, challenged the said order dated 3rd December 2019 of the single judge, though it was in their favour, without disclosing that Manbasa Devi had died and that their Legal Representatives were contesting this case. The idea was to make the petition of the LRs of Manbasa Devi, that is likely to be heard, infructuous.

Read Also: Delhi Metro services to start in graded manner

The Calcutta Landing And Shipping Company Limited, by suppressing the above facts, managed the order from the Supreme Court. It is as follows:


“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.  More so, in view of the fact that the time limit of six months is given by the court to decide the case. Let the court decide the same within the specified period and a report be sent to this Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.”

The above order makes it clear how litigants are managing court orders by suppressing material facts.

Order attached here;


-India Legal Bureau

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update

Supreme Court says OBC quota in Maharashtra local bodies shouldn’t exceed aggregate 50 percent

The Supreme Court on Thursday read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act.....

Supreme Court dismisses appeal filed by murder convict

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

Rakul Preet Singh case: Delhi HC asks I&B Ministry to act against media houses not part of NBSA if they violate laws

The Delhi High Court on Thursday ordered the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry to take action against media houses that are not members of the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA)

Allahabad HC holds 2 UP government officers guilty of contempt

It is observed that the writ court order dated October 14, 2019, has not complied with.

Delhi bus owners seek exemption from road tax, penalty

A Single-Judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has asked the counsel appearing for the respondent GNCTD to take a decision preferably within six weeks.
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.