SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. versus RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 15-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 544
544
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.
v.
RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.9404/2019)
FEBRUARY 15, 2021
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure: Practice of pronouncing the final
operative part of the order without supporting reasons –
Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are prejudiced if
the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of
approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized – It
indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved to
challenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeeding
party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation – This
principle has been restated by the Supreme Court on several
occasions wherein delay in delivery of judgments has been observed
to be in violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India – In the
instant case, National Commission had passed operative order on
26.04.2019 and its reasoned judgment was passed only after eight
months – Direction to the President of the National Commission to
look into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practice
is discontinued and the reasoned judgment is passed along with the
operative order – In all the matters where reasons are yet to be
delivered, it must be ensured that the same are made available to
the litigating parties positively within a period of two months.
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi 1984
(1) SCC 596 : [1984] 2 SCR 50; Anil Rai v. State of
Bihar 2001 (7) SCC 318 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298;
Zahira Habibulla M. Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
& Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3467; Mangat Ram v. State of
Haryana 2008 (7) SCC 96 : [2008]  2 SCR 80;
Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh
& Anr. AIR 201 SC 310 : [2017] 1 SCR 286; Balaji
Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 pronounced on
29.10.2020); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
& Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 2020 pronounced
on 11.12.2020); SJVNL v. M/s. CCC HIM JV &  Anr. (Civil
Appeal  No.  494  of  2021 pronounced on 12.02.2021)
- relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 2 SCR 50
relied on
para 3
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298
relied on
para 3
AIR 2004 SC 3467
relied on
para 5
[2008] 2 SCR 80
relied on
para 5
[2017] 1 SCR 286
relied on
para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal no. 9404 of 
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2019 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer
Case No. 671 of 2019.
Anish R. Shah, T. V. George, Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
In the present case, the reasoned order was passed on 20.12.2019
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National
Commission” for short) in C.A. No.9404 of 2019. A fresh civil appeal
was filed before this Court being C.A. No.6476 of 2020, which has been
dismissed vide Order dated 06.3.2020.
This Court had vide Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the Registrar
of the National Commission to submit a Report stating the number of
cases in which reasoned judgments had not been passed, even though
the operative order had been pronounced in Court. By the report dated
27.7.2020, we have been informed that as on 20.12.2019, there were 85
such cases in which the operative order had been pronounced, but reasoned
judgments were not delivered so far.
The fact which has been brought to our notice by the Registrar of
the Commission can, in no manner, be countenanced that between the
date of operative portion of the order and the reasons are yet to be
provided, or the hiatus period is much more than what has been observed
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. v.
RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved
judgments. In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi
1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of this Court, as far
back in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious
difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was being
adopted by the adjudicating authorities including High Courts/
Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative part of the orders
without supporting reasons. This was later again discussed by this Court
in Anil Rai Vs. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.