SC to hear on Jan 9, Legal News, ET LegalWorld – Legal Firms

New Delhi, The Supreme Court has posted for January 9, 2023 the hearing of a civil case in which two different orders were passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar fixed the hearing after taking note of a report submitted by the Registrar General of the High Court.

“In compliance of the order dated September 23, 2022 report has been submitted by the Registrar General of the High Court. Let fresh notice be served to the unserved respondents. Since the report has been submitted, the personal presence of Registrar General is dispensed with,” the bench said.

Terming the occurrence “very unusual”, the top court had on September 23, 2022 sought a sealed cover report in four weeks from the Registrar General asking him to explain the circumstances under which two different orders were passed by the same division bench on September 1.

It had taken note of the submissions of senior advocate K Subramanian, appearing for a party, that the order, which was pronounced in the open court, was different from the certified copy he had received.

The plea had also alleged that two different orders pertaining to the case with identical proceedings were posted on the court’s website at two different points in time.

“A very unusual situation has been brought to our notice by counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench of the High Court concluded the hearing on August 29, 2022. On September 1, the Bench pronounced its order in open court,” it had said.

The bench had perused the order, pronounced by the Madras High Court, which was downloaded from the high court website.

“We have gone through both orders. Certain paragraphs are completely missing and deleted from the order that is now available on the website of the high court,” it had said, adding the matter needed further inquiry.

It had then directed the Registrar General to submit a report.

The order was passed in the matter of J Mohamed Nazir Vs Mahasemam Trust.

Subramanian, appearing for petitioner Nazir, had alleged that the operative portion containing a direction issued to the other party to deposit Rs 115 crore in a Bank at Annanagar was deleted subsequently.

The apex court had directed both the parties to maintain status quo as per the earlier order with regard to the case. PTI PKS SJK PKS SK SK

Source link