No relief which is not sought in pleadings: Supreme Court

We had earlier written about the law on the issue that Court will not grant relief in the absense of proper assistance by lawyers. On similar lines, in a recent decision, the Supreme Court has explained that courts will decline to grant relief which has not specifically been sought in the pleadings by the parties. Holding that a Court can only provide relief to the parties which seek crave to seek in terms of their pleadings, the Supreme Court declared that it was not for the Court to indulge in providing reliefs which even the parties have not sought.

The Bench explained the law in the following terms; 

29. In Messrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 235, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a party could be granted and that too without having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:

“It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.”

30. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. etc. AIR 1984 SC 186; and Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 409, observing that a party cannot be granted a relief which is not claimed.

31. Dealing with the same issue, this Court in Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 475 held:

“Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.”

32. In Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sarat Chandra Rath &Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2744, this Court held that “the High Court ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even prayed for.”

33. In view of the above, law on the issue can be summarised that the Court cannot grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed by the parties.

Have a look at the decision.

Recovered stolen vehicles to be returned to the insurer: Supreme Court

Noting that stolen vehicles were not being handed over to the insurance companies after being recovered by the Police, the Supreme Court in a recent decision has issued directions to all the police authorities in the country directing them to inform the insurance company of the recovery of the stolen vehicle. The Court apparently was moved by the fact that recovered vehicles languished within the premises of the police-stations, degrading and even being stolen in the appalling conditions, thus leading to a waste of national wealth.

The Court observed inter alia as under;

13. Petitioners have submitted that information with regard to all insured vehicles in the country is available with the Insurance Information Bureau created by IRDA. This information could be utilised to assist the police to identify the insurer of the vehicle. Upon recovery of the vehicle in police station, insurer/ complainant can call an All India Toll Free No. to be provided by Insurance Information Bureau to give the information of the recovered vehicle. Thereafter, the insured vehicle database would be searched to identify the respective insurer. Upon such identification, this information can be communicated to the respective insurer and concerned police stations for necessary coordination.

14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given.

“(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchnama may be prepared before such release.

(B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. 

(C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The undertaking/guarantee would be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the applcation for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer.”

15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/ Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 

16. In case any non-compliance is reported either by the Petitioners or by any of the aggrieved party, then needless to say, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the matter against an erring officer who would be dealt with iron hands.

Have a look at the decision.

Government a necessary party in cases involving State: Supreme Court

Courts in India are governed by procedural laws which govern the trails and the proceedings before them. While there are one sets of rulings which hold that procedure is only a hand-maid of justice and thus should not come into play to preclude a court from ensuring substantive justice, there are equal other sets of rulings which decree that parties not following procedures of the court are not entitled to relief. 

It is in the respect of the second line of decisions that we bring to you a recent decision of the Supreme Court which declares that a suit/claim would not be entertained in which Government was required to be made a party to the dispute and not having so done. Holding that it was essential to ensure that Government was made aware of the litigation by making it a party, the Supreme Court declared that procedural law clearly specifies the situation in which Government is required to be made a party and the law to this regard is settled that if the Government is not made a party, the litigation cannot be proceeded. The Court was dealing with a situation wherein an appeal was filed by the Government officials without making Government a party. In this scenario the Court declared that the appeal could not have been decided without the Government being a party.

The Bench explained the law in the following terms;

5. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’) specifically deals with suits by and against the Government and provides that in suits by and against the Government, the authority to be impleaded as the plaintiff or defendant, would be the Union of India or Central Government or the State or State Government. Proviso to Rule 9 of Order 1 provides that non-joinder of necessary party is fatal. 

6. Rule 1 of Order XXVII CPC deals with suits by or against the Government or by officers in their official capacity. It provides that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or the written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may like by general or special order authorize in that behalf and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint. 

7. Article 300 of the Constitution deals with legal proceedings by or against the Union of India or State and provides that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be; in the case of the Central Government, the Union of India and in the case of State Government, the State, which is suing or is being sued.

8. A Constitution Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab Vs. The Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd., Okara & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 669 held that if relief is sought against the State, suit lies only against the State, but, it may be filed against the Government if the Government acts under colour of the legal title and not as a Sovereign Authority e.g. in a case where the property comes to it under a decree of the Court.

9. In Ranjeet Mal Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 1701, this Court considered a case where the writ petition had been filed challenging the order of termination from service against the General Manager of the Northern Railways without impleading the Union of India. The Court held as under :- 

“The Union of India represents the Railway Administration. The Union carries administration through different servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 226 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view, the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be a necessary party. The petition was rightly rejected by the High Court.” [see also The State of Kerala v. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras AIR 1976 SC 2538]

10. In Kali Prasad Agarwala (Dead by L.Rs.) & Ors. v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1530, while considering an issue whether the suit lands had vested, free from encumbrance in the State consequent upon the issuance of Notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, this Court did not entertain the case observing as under :-

“In our opinion, it is unnecessary to consider the first question and indeed it is not proper also to consider the question in the absence of the State which is a necessary party for adjudication of that dispute. The State of Bihar is not impleaded as a party to the suit and we, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the first question.”

11. In Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board (1999) 6 SCC 44, the State was not impleaded as a party before the Trial Court in a money recovery suit. The same was dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party. During appeal, an application was made under O. 1 R. 10 praying for impleadment of the State, however the High Court decided the matter on merits without considering the same. This Court observed as under :

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have decided the appellant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and, thereafter, proceeded to hear the appeal in question. Not having disposed of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore Regular First Appeal No 29 of 1987 to its file. The High Court should first deal with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. which is pending before it and then proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.”

12. While considering the similar case in Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. Vs. Collector & Ors; AIR 2003 SC 1805, this Court accepted the submission that writ cannot be entertained without impleading the State if relief is sought against the State. This Court had drawn the analogy from Section 79 CPC, which directs that the State shall be the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant in a suit by or against the Government and Section 80 thereof directs notice to the Secretary of that State or the Collector of the district before the institution of the suit and Rule 1 of Order XXVII lays down as to who should sign the pleadings. No individual officer of the Government under the scheme of the constitution nor under the CPC, can file a suit nor initiate any proceeding in the name and the post he is holding, who is not a juristic person.

13. In Bal Niketan Nursery School Vs. Kesari Prasad AIR 1987 SC 1970, this Court held that application for impleadment of a necessary party can be filed at any stage of proceeding provided the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevailing in the case, warrant the impleadment.

Have a look at the decision.

Coordinate benches to observe judicial propriety: The law revisited

Do judges wield ultimate power or even are their ability to dictate terms bounded? The question has always stared the common law system which had led to the origin of doctrines such as stare decisis, judicial propriety and conventions observed by the judges. In this post we have an occasion to examine one of such restraints observed by the Supreme Court which in one considered as an essential component of judicial propriety. The law, as now fairly settled, dictates a bench of the Supreme Court to follow a decision delivered by a bench of a larger or even equal strength. In case of inability to agree, the only option available is to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India requesting to constitute a bench of much larger strength for resolving of conflict. 

The principles were culled out by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice R.C. Lahoti delivering the decision in a Constitutional Bench in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra as reported in AIR 2005 SC 752 wherein the following principles have been culled out;

Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms :-

(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. 

(2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.

(3) The above rules are subject to two exceptions : 

(i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and

(ii) In spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh & Ors. and Hansoli Devi & Ors.(supra).

Have a look at the decision.

Appointment to International Court of Justice

This recent update from American Society of International Law is quiet informative in as much as, written by a former law clerk to a Judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), entails in detail the procedure for appointment of a Judge of the ICJ at the Hague. Written in the background on the spate of vacancies which have arisen at the ICJ, the article provides a wholesome insight into the process that is adopted for the appointment of the judges to the World Court to which India has only sent two judges till date, being Maharaj Nagendra Singh and Justice R.S. Pathak. 

The article also assumes significance as it speaks of the procedure of appointment of special judges in the wake of the recent resignations of two of the judges of the ICJ, a not-common sight at the Court. The article also takes note of the national groups which lead the elections to this Court and the further follow-up at the General Assembly and the Security Council at the U.N. In all the article serves as a good reading for those interested in International Law. The full text of the article is available at this link on the ASIL website.