supervisory jurisdiction - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs

27Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs

The Supreme Court held that for withdrawing prosecution against sitting or former MPs/MLAs, the State must seek the High Court's permission under the mandate of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The Public Prosecutor must disclose all reasons for seeking withdrawal, enabling the High Court to apply its judicial mind and pass a reasoned order. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar, was the subject of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in June 2007 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli. These included Case Crime No. 656/07 and others under Sections 25, 27, 30 of the Arms Act, as well as Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code concerning an arms license. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate,...

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...