1. Oral application for an order while the Special Leave Petition is not before the court. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 681
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Srinivasan : R.C.Lahoti : S.P.Bharucha
Union Of India
Versus
Major C.L.Gill
Case No. : 7347 of 1999
Date of Decision : 5/14/99
Advocates Appeared: Ghosh Bijon
Important Points
The court held that procedural discipline must be maintained and oral applications cannot be entertained to bypass the ordinary course of placing a petition on the board, regardless of the potential hardship to the party.
Subject
Procedural Law - Court Discipline
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Procedural Law - Court Discipline - Oral application for an order - Request to pass an order when the special leave petition is not before the court - Request declined and application rejected - Petition to be placed on board in the ordinary course. (Para 1)
(B) Court Discipline - Argument that a party will suffer does not justify violation of court discipline - Apology of counsel accepted, but order remains unchanged. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Counsel for the petitioner made an oral application for an order in a matter where the special leave petition was not currently before the court.
Findings of Court:
The court declined to pass an order on an oral application and directed that the petition be placed on the board in the ordinary course.
Issues: Whether an oral application for an order can be entertained when the petition is not before the court, and whether the potential suffering of a party justifies a deviation from court discipline.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural discipline of the court must be maintained; oral applications cannot be used to bypass the standard process of placing a matter on the board.
Result: Application rejected.
(B) Court Discipline - Argument that a party will suffer does not justify violation of court discipline - Apology of counsel accepted, but order remains unchanged. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Counsel for the petitioner made an oral application for an order in a matter where the special leave petition was not currently before the court.
Findings of Court:
The court declined to pass an order on an oral application and directed that the petition be placed on the board in the ordinary course.
Issues: Whether an oral application for an order can be entertained when the petition is not before the court, and whether the potential suffering of a party justifies a deviation from court discipline.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural discipline of the court must be maintained; oral applications cannot be used to bypass the standard process of placing a matter on the board.
Result: Application rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission that the party would suffer if the oral application were not granted. (Para 2 )
3. Potential suffering of a party does not justify the violation of court discipline. (Para 2 )
4. Court discipline must be maintained and cannot be violated regardless of the potential suffering of a party. (Para 2 )
5. Oral application rejected — Special Leave Petition to be placed on board in the ordinary course. (Para 1 )
6. Does the potential suffering of a party justify the violation of court discipline in procedural applications?
No, the court held that the fact that a party will suffer does not mean that court discipline can be violated. (Para 2 )
S.P.BHARUCHA, J.
(1) THE special leave petition is not before us. Learned counsel wants us to pass an order on his oral application. We decline to do so. The application is rejected. Having regard to the fact that the application is made and strenuously pressed orally, the SLP shall now be placed on board in the ordinary course.
(2) LEARNED counsel states that the party will suffer. That does not mean that discipline can be violated in this fashion. Learned counsel insists that we "appreciate". It is because of our appreciation of the discipline of the court that this order is passed. Learned counsel apologises. The apology is accepted but the order is not changed.
