Justice Bindal - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...

The Supreme Court held that an investigation is not automatically vitiated solely because the informant and investigator are the same. This procedural irregularity must be examined on a case-specific basis for bias. The Court overruled the contrary precedent in Mohan Lal and restored the matter for a merits-based hearing. Facts Of The Case: Based on the secret information received on September 20, 2009, police intercepted a truck. The respondent, Gurnam @ Gama, was found sitting on a stack of bags in the cargo area, while the other respondent, Jaswinder Singh, was driving the vehicle. Upon search, the authorities recovered a significant quantity of 750 kilograms of poppy husk along with two motorcycles. Consequently, FIR No. 221 of 2009 was registered under the relevant sections of the N...

Tag: Justice Bindal

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned