CAN COURT GRANT JUDICIAL IMMUNITY TO ANY PERSON/ COMPANY ?

Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Advocate, Legal, Law,

Judicial Immunity to NBCC - Buyers of Amarpali 

Grant of Judicial Immunity, in the present context, means that such Person/ Company cannot be sued in any court of Law. Such Judicial Immunity is granted only to the “President of India” under the Constitution. The Question is - Can Supreme Court grant such a immunity even if it is not contemplated under the Constitution? 


Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 10.06.2020 in the matter of Bikram Chatterji and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. granted Judicial Immunity to NBCC in the following words :- 


They are granted immunity to be sued in any other court or commission, and they are answerable to this Court only in the pending proceedings.


By this Order Hon’ble Supreme Court has also granted Judicial Immunity to NBCC from initiation of any fresh proceedings against them. Buyers of Amarpali will have a tough time inasmuch they cannot initiated fresh proceedings against NBCC even in Supreme Court. The above order of grant of Judicial Immunity, in my respectful submission, is exercise of power by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is even beyond Constitution inasmuch as such immunity is specifically granted only to President and nobody else.


In case, you need any clarification/ assistance/ help, please feel free to contact me on my whatsapp number. I will be happy if you can leave your comments.


MY GOOGLE MAP LOCATION

Location: Delhi, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WILL PROCEEDINGS START DE-NOVO OR CONTINUE IN CASE OF RETURN OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 CPC?

Image
      Order 7 and Return of Plaint is one of the fundamental objections taken by Defense Counsel in Civil Litigation. In case of return of Plaint from a Court lacking inherent Jurisdiction to the court of appropriate Jurisdiction, a moot question arises for consideration is whether the proceedings shall start “De-Novo” (fresh) or it will be a continuance of the earlier proceedings ?   There has been a difference of opinion even in Supreme Court and therefore the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Issue is now settled in the matter of  EXL Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services  Private Limited    decided on 05-08-2020 as follows :-    (1) The proceedings will start afresh (DE-NOVO) and NO cognizance of  proceedings or earlier court will be considered.   (2) For the purpose of limitation, Plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction.   ...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more