Skip to main content

Salem Advocate Bar Association case SC 2005

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, among other things, has observed and directed –

“…The Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defendants in a large number of Cases pending in various courts in the country. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in a large number of cases either the notice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation but also results in heavy expenses and costs to the exchequer as well.

A proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between the State and the citizens. In case a proper reply is sent, either the claim in the notice may be admitted or the area of controversy curtailed, or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State.

Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or State or other authorities concerned, whenever any statute requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against it, to nominate, within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 or similar provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation.

The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite, if the court finds that either the notice has not been replied to or the reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper application of mind, the court shall ordinarily award heavy costs against the Government and direct it to take appropriate action against the officer concerned including recovery of costs from him.”.


Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

Law Referencer: https://www.vakeelkanumber.com/


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fraud / Misleading the Courts

AIR 2007 SC 1546 Para 21:  Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". Para 22:  It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Para 23:  In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. V/s. Beasley, 1956 1 AllER 341, Lord Denning observed: "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud." ...
9 comments
Read more

Res Judicata, doctrine of

A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, Judgment dated NOVEMBER 29, (2004 AIR 2005 SC 446 : 2005 (1) SCC 444) , observed as – Para 11: The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Satyadhyan Ghosal V/s. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941. A three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal Versus Deorajin...
1 comment
Read more

Service, documents / Notices of, Presumpt

AIR 2011 SC 1150 PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED POST & BURDEN OF PROOF: Para 13:  This Court after considering large number of its earlier judgments in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. V/s. Manju Jain & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3817, held that in view of the provisions of Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287. Para 14:  In Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. V/s. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, this Court held as under: "There is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a...
Post a Comment
Read more