9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Revocation of special leave to appeal due to non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the special leave to appeal granted to the appellant should be revoked due to non-compliance with the provisions of 0. 13, r. 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950. The respondent, a cashier in the appellant Bank, was suspended and later dismissed from service. He filed a petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming payment. The Labour Court partially allowed the claim, leading to a petition in the Punjab High Court. The High Court quashed the Labour Court's order, directing a fresh decision. The appellant sought a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court but failed to comply with procedural requirements. Eventually, the appellant filed a petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which was granted ex parte on August 21, 1962. The respondent contended that the special leave should be revoked as it was obtained without following the procedural rule of moving the High Court for a certificate of fitness under Art. 132 of the Constitution. The appellant did not seek exemption from compliance with the rule, and the respondent filed an application for revocation of the special leave. The Court noted that no appeal lay directly to the Supreme Court in this case, and compliance with the procedural rule was mandatory. The Court could excuse non-compliance for sufficient reasons, but the appellant did not seek such exemption. Therefore, the special leave obtained in contravention of the rule was deemed liable to be revoked. The appellant relied on a previous case to argue against revocation at a late stage, citing prejudice. However, the Court distinguished the current case from the precedent, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the rule breached in this instance. As no prejudice was demonstrated due to the respondent's default or delay in raising objections, the Court directed the revocation of the special leave to appeal. The order of stay, if any, was vacated, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the special leave to appeal granted to the appellant was revoked due to non-compliance with the procedural rule, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
