Inherent Right of Procedural Review

AIR 1999 Cal 29  Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose

Every court has inherent right of procedural review, for substantive review power is required

Interim Protection while withdrawing / dismissing appeal

G.E. Power Controls India v. S. Lakshmipathy [(2005) 11 SCC 509 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 392] .)

Ajay Mohan v. H.N. Rai, (2008) 2 SCC 507

 

Ordinarily, a court, while allowing a party to withdraw an appeal, could not have granted a further relief.

 

 

Hotel Queen Road (P) Ltd. v. Ram Parshotam Mittal, (2014) 13 SCC 646 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 747 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 624 at page 650

16. In view of the aforestated judgments, it is very clear that if a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately withdrawn, the court should not continue interim relief for a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However, the aforestated observation would not apply to a case where the matter is heard on merits and after considering the facts of the case the court permits withdrawal of the case. In such a case, the court is at liberty to extend the interim relief or can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording reasons for the same.

 

Interim relief can only be in aid and as ancillary to main relief

In the case of State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 12, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clearly spelt out contours within which the interim relief can be granted. The Court said that:

“an interim can be granted only in the aid of, and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceedings. If this be the purpose to achieve which power to grant temporary relief is conferred, it is inconceivable that where the final relief cannot be granted in the terms sought for because the statute bars granting of such a relief ipso factothe temporary relief of the same nature cannot be granted.”

 

Order passed without jurisdiction can be challenged even after the period of limitation

Singham Chetty v. State of T.N., 2001 (5) SCC 700

Interim Bail to be considered on the same day

 Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 559 at page 560

3. When a person applies for regular bail then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the meantime the applicant has to go to jail. Even if the applicant is released on bail thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in society. The reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 16 SCC 14 : JT (2008) 11 SC 609] . Hence, we are of the opinion that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is in the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly there.

 

4. In the present case, if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and makes a prayer for grant of interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application, the same shall be considered and decided on the same day.

Undertaking to Pay Damages - not contemplated in law

Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1 at page 15

26. But the Code nowhere authorises or empowers the court to issue a direction to a plaintiff to file an undertaking to pay damages to the defendant in the event of being unsuccessful in the suit. The Code also does not contain any provision to assess the damages payable by a plaintiff to the defendant, when the plaintiff's suit is still pending, without any application by the defendant, and without a finding of any breach or wrongful act and without an inquiry into the quantum of damages. There is also no contract between the parties which requires the appellant to furnish such undertaking. None of the provisions of either the TP Act or the Specific Relief Act or any other substantive law enables the court to issue such an interim direction to a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay damages. In the absence of an enabling provision in the contract or in the Code or in any substantive laws a court trying a civil suit, has no power or jurisdiction to direct the plaintiff, to file an affidavit undertaking to pay any specified sum to the defendant, by way of damages, if the plaintiff does not succeed in the suit. In short, law does not contemplate a plaintiff indemnifying a defendant for all or any losses sustained by the defendant on account of the litigation, by giving an undertaking at the time of filing a suit or before trial, to pay damages to the defendants in the event of not succeeding in the case.

Importance of Procedures (Criminal Law - Preventive Detention)

Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 at page 257

38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society's assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experiences.