Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

Kushuma Devi Vs. Sheopati Devi (D) and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (08 Apr 2019)

Every judicial or quasi-judicial order passed by Court must be supported with reasons in support of its conclusion

MANU/SC/0490/2019

Civil

The Appellant filed an eviction petition against the Respondents. By order, the Civil Judge decreed the suit and passed the decree for eviction against the Respondents. The Respondents felt aggrieved and filed Rent Appeal. The first Appellate Court by order allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the Appellant. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the Additional District Judge, in the absence of the Appellant. The Appellant filed an application for recall of the order. The High Court by order dismissed the said application. Issue raised in present case is whether High Court was justified in simply dismissing the writ petition without assigning any reason.

Present Court has consistently laid down that, every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion.

The orders impugned in present appeals suffer from error as the High Court while passing the impugned order simply dismissed the writ petition without any discussion, finding and the reason. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh. Appeal allowed.

Tags : JUDICIAL ORDER   REASONING   ABSENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved