not necessary to set aside the consequential order

In State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam, (2001) 10 SCC 191 at page 192, the Supreme Court has held that :

 

9. Mr E.M.S. Anam, learned counsel for the petitioner Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat submitted that pursuant to the impugned order learned Single Judge had passed consequential orders and he pleads that this Court may interfere with the said consequential orders also. We find it unnecessary because when once the main impugned order is set aside, any other consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically go.

 

Delay in filing S 138 complaint

 

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, Ss. 138 & 142 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, Ss. 473, 200, 202 & 203 — Time-barred complaint — Complainant obliged to submit an application for condonation of delay if prima facie complaint filed beyond period of statutory limitation — Else complaint can be dismissed complaint for delay any time and even in appeal or in revision

2003 SCC OnLine Bom 1132 : (2003) 2 MWN (Cri) DCC 73 (Bom) : 2004 Cri LJ 1687 : (2004) 4 BC 128 : (2004) 3 BC 33

J 1

HIGH COURT'S ROLE AS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

 

1. P N Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, 1987 (4) SCC 609

 

2. We are of the view that this petition should be disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a petition, if so advised, before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We accordingly dispose of this petition for the following reasons:

“(1) The scope of the powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wider than the scope of the powers of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

(2) The relief prayed for in the petition is one which may be granted by the High Court and any of the parties who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court can approach this Court by way of an appeal. The fact that some case involving the very same point of law is pending in this Court is no ground to entertain a petition directly by-passing the High Court.

(3) If the parties get relief at the High Court, they need not come here and to that extent the burden on this Court is reduced.

(4) The hearing of the case at the level of the High Court is more convenient from several angles and will be cheaper to the parties. It saves a lot of time too. It will be easier for the clients to give instructions to their lawyers.

(5) Our High Courts are High Courts. Each High Court has its own high traditions. They have Judges of eminence who have initiative, necessary skills and enthusiam. Their capacity should be harnessed to deal with every type of case arising from their respective areas, which they are competent to dispose of.

(6) Every High Court Bar has also its high traditions. There are eminent lawyers practising in the High Courts with wide experience in handling different kinds of cases, both original and appellate. They are fully aware of the history of every legislation in their States. Their services should be made available to the litigants in the respective States.

(7) This Court has no time today even to dispose of cases which have to be decided by it alone and by no other authority. Large number of cases are pending from 10 to 15 years. Even if no new case is filed in this Court hereafter, with the present strength of Judges it may take more than 15 years to dispose of all the pending cases.

(8) If the cases which can be filed in the High Courts are filed in the High Court and not in this Court this Court's task of acting as an original court which is a time-consuming process can be avoided and this Court will also have the benefit of the decision of the High Court when it deals with an appeal filed against such decision.

(9) If cases which may be filed in the High Courts are filed in this Court it would affect the initiative of the High Courts. We should preserve the dignity, majesty and efficiency of the High Courts. The taking-over by this Court of the work which the High Courts can handle may undermine the capacity and efficiency of the High Courts and that should therefore be avoided.

(10) Lastly, the time saved by this Court by not entertaining the cases which may be filed before the High Courts can be utilised to dispose of old matters in which parties are crying for relief.”

 

 

2. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. vs State Of Bihar, 2004 5 SCC 1

 

8. Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Court both are courts of record. The High Court is not a court 'subordinate' to the Supreme Court. In a way the canvass of judicial powers vesting in the High Court is wider inasmuch as it has jurisdiction to issue all prerogative writs conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose while the original jurisdiction of Supreme Court to issue prerogative writs remains confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights and to deal with some such matters, such as Presidential election or inter-state disputes which the Constitution does not envisage being heard and determined by High Courts. The High Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all subordinate courts and tribunals; the Supreme Court has not been conferred with any power of superintendence. If the Supreme Court and the High Courts both were to be thought of as brothers in the administration of justice, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother. There are a few provisions which give an edge, and assign a superior place in the hierarchy, to Supreme Court over High Courts. So far as the appellate jurisdiction is concerned, in all civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court is the highest and the ultimate court of appeal. It is the final interpreter of the law. Under Article 139-A, the Supreme Court may transfer any case pending before one High Court to another High Court or may withdraw the case to itself. Under Article 141 the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts, including High Courts, within the territory of India. Under Article 144 all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India - and that would include High Court as well - shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

…

30. While quoting the several authorities and references as hereinabove we should not be misunderstood as calling 'the Supreme Court a superior Court and the High Court an inferior court', all that we wish to say is that jurisdictionally, and in the hierarchical system, so far as the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is concerned, undoubtedly the Supreme Court is a superior forum and the High Court an inferior forum in the sense that the later is subjected to jurisdiction, called 'appellate jurisdiction' of the former.

31. The very existence of appellate jurisdiction obliges the lower jurisdiction to render all of its assistance to the higher jurisdiction to enable the exercise of appellate jurisdiction fully and effectively. The lower forum may be called upon to certify its record of case and proceedings to the superior forum. The superior forum may stand in need of some information which being in the possession or knowledge of the subordinate forum, shall have to be made available only by it. The superior forum may issue a stay order or restraint order or may suspend, expedite or regulate the proceedings in the subordinate forum. During or at the end of exercise of the appellate jurisdiction any direction made by the higher forum shall have to be complied with by the lower forum, otherwise the hierarchy becomes meaningless.

32. Though, the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 136 is very wide and no technically can prevent or hinder the effective exercise of such jurisdiction yet as a rule of prudence and self-imposed discipline the superior forum refuses to exercise its jurisdiction in the first instance if the grievance raised is capable of being taken care of by any lower forum competent to do so.

 

 

Recovery of excess salary

 (2015) 4 SCC 334 (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)):

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.

Not set rule on delay and laches in writ - challenge a stale order when cause of action arises.