HC cannot take away discretion of sanctioning authority by directing to grant sanction

Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622

Cannot supplement or explain or make submissions contrary to what is recorded in judicial order

In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak [(1982) 2 SCC 463 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 478 : AIR 1982 SC 1249] this Court observed: (SCC p. 467, para 4)

"4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney-General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. 'Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation.' (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty [AIR 1926 PC 136] .) We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan Chowdhri v. Chandrabati Chowdhrain [AIR 1917 PC 30 : 21 CWN 897] .) That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment."

 

Letter and Spirit both relevant in contempt cases

In Lakshman Prasad Agarwal v. Syed Mohd. Karim, (2020) 17 SCC 826, this Hon'ble Court has held that "The High Court also rejected and, in our view, very correctly the said contention. It is relevant to state here that in a proceeding when an order is passed by the court where the question of compliance or non-compliance of the same arises, not merely the letter of the order but also its spirit is to be understood and the plea of bona fide or genuine belief taken on the part of the contemnor is to be adjudicated on that basis."

 

Where the complaint is time barred, S.319 CrPC cannot be invoked

N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas, (2018) 13 SCC 663 

Re: FIR lodged to pre-empt Section 138 NI Act Case - quashed

Such cases to be tried together rather than quashing

Pareshbhai Amrutlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 12 SCC 569 

FIR lodged to pre-empt Section 138 NI Act Case - quashed

Sunil Kumar v. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd., (1999) 8 SCC 468 

Partner continues to be liable after resignation unless he gives publ

Partner continues to be liable after resignation unless he gives public notice

Union Bank of India v. Six Star Hosieries, 2001 SCC OnLine Mad 1000