Hypothetical Questions Are Not Decided By The Supreme Court

Notice Before Granting Special Leave

On a special leave petition, leave can be granted ex parte or after notice to the other side. The Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of A. P., observed that where notice was given to the respondent before the hearing of the application for grant of special leave, no objection to the maintainability of the appeal or to the granting of special leave would be permitted to be urged at any stage after the grant of it, except possibly where the ground urged happens to arise subsequent to the grant of leave or where it could not be ascertained by the respondent at that date notwithstanding the exercise of due care.

Power To Remand The Case Back To The Tribunal or High Court

Under Article 142(I) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Under this Article, the Supreme Court may, in particular circumstances of the case send the matter back to the lower Court or Tribunal to be dealt with in accordance with law when by adopting such a course justice will be done between the parties. If the High Court has rejected the matter in limine or has not considered certain points, the Supreme Court may remand the matter to the High Court.

Supreme Court Can Pass Orders For Interim Relief In Appeals Under Article 136

Once the special leave is granted under Article 136, the Supreme Court can make such orders for the interim period, between the granting of leave and final hearing of the appeal, which may be just and necessary for doing full justice to the parties. It may be stated that on issue of notice on the petition or grant of leave, the impugned order does not get stayed. A proper application for stay would have to be made and orders of the Court are
required. Order XX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules makes specific provision for grant of interim relief. In Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, the Court directed the employer to pay to the suspended workmen half of their montbly salaries until the disposal of the appeal.

In State of U.P. v. Poosu, the Supreme Court while granting special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal held that it was competent for the Court, by virtue of Article 142 read with Article 136, to exercise the High Court had under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court could issue non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the accused during the pendency of the petition or the appeal.

The Supreme Court can pass orders when the petition comes up for admission for the first time, even if the petition may be listed ex-parte Interim orders can be made at the after notice stage. In urgent cases, interim orders (ex parte or in presence of respondent-caveator) can be passed at the mentioning stage.

A Party Can Compromise The Matter During The Pendency Of Appeal Under Article 136

In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Lid, Kanpur v. Rajeshwar Prasad, the Court held that pending the petition/appeal, it is open to the parties to enter into a compromise and settle the dispute. Such. compromise has been treated as valid compromise and the Court can pass orders in terms of the compromise. Where a petition for recording compromise is filed in appeal before the Supreme Court and the terms of compromise are reasonable and romote the best interests of the parties, a decree in terms of compromise can be directed to be made in substitution of the decree under appeal.

Hypothetical Questions Are Not Decided By The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will not decide any hypothetical question under Article 136. It will decide only a point of law if it has actually arisen. Under Article 136 the Supreme Court does not have any advisory jurisdiction and hence it will not tender any advice.

In Central Bank of India Ltd, v Workmen, it was observed:
It is to be remembered that we are exercising our appellate jurisdiction in these seven appeals and not our advisory jurisdiction. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to decide hypothetical questions which may arise in future reference that may be made under the amended section. In the exercise of its appellate power this Court does not give speculative opinions on hypothetical questions. It would be contrary to principles, inconvenient and inexpedient that opinion should be given on questions."

In the under noted case arising under Section 68-F(I-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, where an extension of permit was quashed by High court, and pending the appeal before the Supreme Court, the route was nationalized, it was held that the appeal had become infructuous, because even if the Supreme Court were to allow the appeal it could not grant or direct the grant of the permit.

Print This Article

File Special leave Petition

Contact us to File SLP in Supreme Court
Get Instant excess to a top Notch lawyer from Supreme court to Help you with your Filing and Court appearance.
Call Ph no: 9650499965

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: [email protected]

Divorce by Mutual Consent in Delhi/NCR

Right Away Call us at Ph no: 9650499965