Inherent Jurisdiction to Call Their Own Orders: High Courts, Courts of Record

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd, a question was put up on the High Court’s power to recall its orders. The Bombay High Court initially ordered appointment of an arbitrator, and later it was discovered by the judge that there was no presence of an arbitration clause and the said order was recalled on the other hand on the appeal of the other party it was held by the Divisional bench that there was no clause in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, so that any court can review its own order.  

The bench comprising Justice R F Nariman and Justice M R Shah didn’t agree with the division bench and said that “it is clear that these constitutional courts being the courts of own records, the jurisdiction to recall their own orders is inherent by the virtue of the fact that they are superior courts of record. This has been recognized in several of our judgment”

The bench comprising Justice R F Nariman and Justice M R Shah referred the case, Shivdev Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, M.M. Thomas v. state of kerala and National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. vs. James Chadwick & Bros.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai challenged the Division bench order in the apex court. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar who appeared from the side of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, contended that the court has the inherent power to recall its record. On the other side senior advocate Shekhar Naphade who appeared on the side of the other party contended that Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is not possible to look out of the act to find the power and even by invoking Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Courts has inherent jurisdiction to recall its own orders being the courts of records.

On one hand the court has been given adequate power to make an adjudicatory process and investigations into the matters and build up a strong, effective and efficient eco system for justice but on the other hand, the courts have to be precautious against the error of judgment due to the human aspect of the system which may provide failures in justice and hence there should be some inherent power to provide safe guards against error and failure’s in justice.The inherent power of the High Courts to recall its own order is more of a necessity then of a power. 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -