9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of a judgment by State of Haryana, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Faridabad, and Sub-Registrar, Faridabad regarding a writ petition disposal. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition. The High Court had directed the respondents to complete a necessary exercise within four months based on the order appended with the application. The appellant contended that the High Court failed to establish the relevance of a previous judgment in a different case to the current dispute. The appellant argued that the present case did not involve a refusal to register a sale deed, unlike the previous case. The respondent's counsel, however, argued that a letter requiring a "No objection certificate" was related to the refusal of registration, citing Section 7(A) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The Supreme Court noted the lack of indication by the High Court on the applicability of the previous judgment to the present case. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of courts not relying on decisions without discussing how the factual situation aligns with the decision. It clarified that court observations should be understood in context and not as statutory provisions. The Court cited various judicial statements to highlight the distinction between interpreting statutes and judgments. It cautioned against blindly applying precedents and stressed the need for a case-by-case analysis to ensure justice. The Court quoted Lord Denning's views on precedents and emphasized the importance of cutting off irrelevant aspects to clear the path to justice. In light of the above, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the case's merits. The respondent's counsel requested final disposal of the writ petition due to similar pending cases in the High Court. The Supreme Court, considering the submission, urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of the writ petition. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without costs.
|
