LexM/S. SPENCER AND CO. LTD. AND ANR. versus M/S. VISHWA DARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H MIS SPENCER AND CO., LTD. AND ANR. v. MIS VISHWA DARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. DECEMBER 6, 1994 [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] Constitution of India-Articles 141, 142 and 144-Relationship between Supreme Court and High Court-Duty of High Court direction by Supreme Court to High Court couched in terms of request-High Court not complying with the direction-Held, High Court is under obligation to come in aid of Supreme Court and comply its directions even though couched in terms of a request Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court against certain interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court _of Madras. This Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petitions and the application for stay. On 14.1.1994 this Court passed an order directjng the parties counsel to approach the High Court for an early disposal of the matter and inform this court the result thereof. This court further observed: "We have no doubt that the High Court when approached for the purpose would give the matter due atterition as is expected by us." Thereafter, the special leave petitions were adjourned from time to time to await the decision of the High Court. On 18.8. 1994, a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the early hearing application on the ground that there is nothing important in the matter so as to give it precedence over other matters. While rejecting the early hearing application, the High court took notice of the order of this Court dated 14.1.1994. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after consulting the Solicitor General and the counsel for the parties this Court set aside the 9rder of the High Court rejecting the early hearing application and directed the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, at any rate within one month. Restraining itself from issuing contempt notice to the Judges comprising the Division Bench of the High Court, this Court 294 SPENCER & CO., v. VISHWA DARSHAN [PUNCHHI, J.] 295 HELD : 1. When one superior speaks to another it is always in a A , language sweet, soft and melodious, more suggestive than directive. Judicial language is always cha~te. Outwardly, the order dated January 14, 1994 is neither commanding in nature nor explicitly in terms of a direction. However, the High Court was bound to come in aid of the Supreme Court when it required the High Court to have its order worked out. The language of request oftenly employed by the Supreme B Court in such situations is tt> be read by the High Court as an obligation, in carrying out the constitutional mandate, maintaining the writ of the Supreme Court running large throughout the country. (298 B, 300 DJ Bhagavad Gita verse 73 referred to : Mis Bayer India Ltd and Others C v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1993] 3 SCC 29, referred to. 2. There is a deliberate and conscious obstruction, put and recorded by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court even when the judicial order of the Supreme Court dated 14.1.1994 was before them, in support of the prayer for an l!arly du rated hearing of the appeal. D [300 A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 12597-600of1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.93 of the Madras High Court E in C.M.P Nos 6300-6303of1993 .. Dipankar P. Gupta, Solicitor General, G. L. Sanghi, K. Parasaran, S. Arvind, V. Balachandran, P. Parmeswaran, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Ms. Sarin Khanjuria and Ms lndu Malhotra for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered by : PUNCHHI, J. It has been said before, and needs to be said again, what we are about to through this order, to strengthen the functional chains, which pull the judicial machine to its destination, on the track laid by the Constitution. We have on our board special leave petitions nos. 12597-600 of 1993 against the judgement and order dated 29th April, 1993 of a Division Bench F G of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in some C.M.P.s in O.S.A. Nos 69-73 of 1993. These are at the instance of the first and the second defendant in the original suit filed by the plaintiff-first respondent, pending before a learned Single Jupge of the High Court, in which in intra - H 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R A court appellate jurisdiction the petitioners have been subjected to certain interim orders o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.