Supreme Court: Trial Judge Can't deny Deciding Case saying the Time barred Set by Apex Court

Case Name: Shiv Kumar Shaw and Another Versus Rekha Shaw.

Introduction:

In a present case, the Apex Court observed a grave issue over an unexpected order delivered by a Trial Court Judge, who denied deciding a case on the ground that it was time barred, as the deadline set by the Supreme Court for completing the proceedings had expired. The Apex Court condemned this approach, directing that the Trial Judge could not decline to exercise jurisdiction merely because the case was time barred.

Background of the Case:

In this case the Court, on 18 January 2024 by an order dismissed of Criminal Appeal No. 2842 of 2023, directing a particular directive that the Judicial Magistrate of the 4th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, was mandate to adjudicate the case AC-2053 of 2017 in duration of six weeks. Although, it seems that the Learned Judge was unable to complete the disposal of the said case within the prescribed time. Subsequently, the Judge on 19 March 2024 passed an order explaining that, being not able to the matter within the Specified timeline, he had as a result, lost jurisdiction over the case. This order of the Trial Court highlighted important concerns pertaining to the proper exercise of judicial authority and compliance with process-related timelines mandated by the higher judiciary.

Supreme Court Ruling on Time-Barred Limitation

The Court emphasized the issue of the way the Learned Judge passed the order. It stated that if the Judge was incapable of deciding the case within the time frame by the Court, the appropriate action would have been to seek an extension. He could not assert that his jurisdiction ended merely because the deadline had passed.

“We are pained to note the way the order has been passed by the Learned Judge. If for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed.”,  Court observed.

Considering this, the Apex Court clarified that the relevant District Judge requested clarification from the Trial Judge and submitted a report within one month. The Judge must clarify why he said that he had no jurisdiction to continue with the case.

Furthermore, two weeks' time was granted to file a reply and give the grounds for the delay in determining the case.

The Apex Court also stated that the Registry was directed to convey a copy of this order to the relevant authorities.

Summarization of the present case with the help of LAWTTORNEY.AI TOOL

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled out that a Trial Judge cannot deny handling a case just because of the timeframe set by the Apex Court. If the judge could not conclude the case on time-bound, then not to withdraw from the case entirely. Calling the Judge’s exceptional step, the court asked the District Judge to get a written explanation from him within a month, clarifying why he believed he no longer had jurisdiction to continue the case.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now