SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 369

B.C.RAY, M.P.THAKKAR
Nilima Priyadarshini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
JAYA NARAYAN, P.P.SINGH, PRAMOD SVARUP

ORDER:- We are shocked that a matter arising out of an application bearing the dateline of 21st November, 1986 (addressed to the Honble Chief Justice of India) made by a woman who has complained of having been kept in illegal confinement against her wishes which appears to have been received in the Registry on 15-1-1987 has been placed before us for orders as late as two and a half months thereafter. It is making a mockery of the judicial process if a matter where a woman complains of illegal confinement is not treated as important enough to be placed before the Court forthwith. If a matter of this nature is not considered urgent enough for being listed on a priority basis, no other matter deserves to be listed on priority basis. We find that every other day matters where even the judgments of the lower courts are not filed and records incomplete are placed before the Court and we are required to adjourn the matters till and the documents are filed. When these matters which cannot be dealt with occupy a place on the list of the Court to elbow out really urgent matters and fruitlessly occupy the time of the Court, it is a matter of great distress that matters of urgency like the pre




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top