Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Gulab Bai and Anr. v. Puniya - (Supreme Court) (07 Oct 1965)

Supreme Court clears confusions about infant Rajasthan High Court’s competence

MANU/SC/0017/1965

Civil

Fifty years ago the Supreme Court faced the unique dilemma of telling a still ‘young’ Rajasthan High Court to become besotted with its appellate authority: probably not the kind of advice it would give today. It held that a decision of the trial court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is final, unless it is appealed under Section 47 of the Act; similarly, an order passed by a Single judge of the High Court, on appeal from the trial court, is also final, subject to the Division Bench determining its jurisdiction, which it was essentially told to not question so much. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for disposal, determining that in a back and forth of decisions and appeals, each finding contrary to the last, the matter needed perhaps a more just finality. The order must have come as more than just a little relief to the little-mentioned ‘ward’ who had been bounced around between the Respondent ‘real’ parents and the Appellant foster parents who had looked after her for many years. With underlying notes of caste, it was the higher caste Respondents who had placed their daughter in the custody of the lower caste Appellants to “save the child” from whatever misfortune caused the Respondents to lose “some children in their infancy”.

Relevant : Union of India (UOI) vs. Mohindra Supply Company MANU/SC/0004/1961 L. Ram Sarup vs. Mt. Kaniz Ummehani MANU/UP/0056/1936

Tags : HIGH COURT   APPEAL   FINALITY   RAJASTHAN  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved