Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
JAK KWANG BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS SDN BHD vs NG CHEE KEONG & ORS - High Court
"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_2001_2070) [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MY_MLRH_2001_5_MLRH_858) ["JAK KWANG BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS SDN BHD vs NG CHEE KEONG
"]SARVJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS - Allahabad
"]Lower courts retain jurisdiction to proceed absent explicit High Court stay/injunction despite notice issuance, but recalling own sub judice order risks infructuousness/prejudice and is generally impermissible—remedy lies with higher court. the very decree passed by the lower Appellate Court... has become infructuous ["2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 466"] ["2022 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1958"]
In the intricate world of Indian judiciary, a common dilemma arises: Can a recall its order if the order is subjudice before the (no stay is granted but notice has been issued to the parties)? This question often perplexes litigants, lawyers, and even judges navigating concurrent proceedings across court levels.
Sub-judice status—meaning a matter pending before a —raises concerns about jurisdiction. Does mere issuance of notice to parties automatically halt the 's powers? Or does the absence of a preserve full authority? This blog post delves into authoritative judgments, unpacking the principles that govern such scenarios. We'll explore why lower courts typically retain jurisdiction, supported by key case law, and offer practical insights. Note: This is general legal information, not specific advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
No, a cannot recall its order merely because it is sub-judice before the where notice has been issued but no stay granted. However, the retains full jurisdiction to proceed, including recalling an order if independent grounds exist under inherent or statutory powers (e.g., under CrPC exceptions or ).
Mere pendency without a stay or formal communication of restraint does not suspend jurisdiction or render actions void. As held in key rulings:- Lower courts retain jurisdiction despite sub-judice status unless a stay is communicated and effective. 1960 0 Supreme(Ker) 412- The fact that an order of stay has been passed by an appellate court does not affect the jurisdiction of the subordinate court and the order takes effect only after it is officially communicated to the subordinate court. 1960 0 Supreme(Ker) 412
This principle ensures judicial efficiency, preventing automatic paralysis from notices alone.
Here are the foundational rules:- No Automatic Suspension: Admission of / with notice does not oust powers without explicit stay. Proceedings continue normally. 1942 0 Supreme(Cal) 11- Stay Requires Communication: Even stay orders operate only post-communication; pre-communication acts remain valid. 1960 0 Supreme(Ker) 412 1942 0 Supreme(Cal) 11- Acts Post-Notice, Pre-Stay Valid: Such actions are irregular at worst, not nullities, allowing recalls on merits. 1962 0 Supreme(All) 185- Statutory Reinforcement: In contexts like , stays don't oust jurisdiction; ignorance-based proceedings aren't void. A passed by the higher Court does not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction already possessed by the subordinate Court. 1962 0 Supreme(All) 185
These align with broader jurisprudence: superior proceedings don't inherently withdraw matters from lower courts. 1942 0 Supreme(Cal) 11
Consistent across cases, involvement demands explicit restraint:- In revisions/appeals, notice under doesn't halt lower courts sans stay. proceed unless discharge set aside. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 427- Civil parallels: Stay of appellate judgment doesn't revive trial injunctions via merger; no automatic suspension. The stay of operation of an order does not... lead to such a result. 2007 0 Supreme(Ori) 183
Asian Resurfacing directions (auto-vacation after six months) apply only to trial stays, irrelevant here without stay.
In criminal matters, mere admission doesn't invoke s.390 (bail/arrest) without explicit order. Lower courts retain recall powers pre-final superior decision. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 427
Other precedents reinforce recall viability amid pendency:
Orders and Recall Maintainability: against orders are viable to uphold . An interim stay without delay condonation () is improper. The court set aside such an order, emphasizing hearings before final relief via interim. Recall distinguishes from —no merits re-adjudication needed, just fairness. 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1494
Sub-Judice Liberty for Revival: Courts may dispose matters sub-judice but grant liberty for recall/revival post-resolution, balancing interests. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9463
No Stay in Appeals: Even with notice of motion sans stay, continue; no bar to actions. 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 659
Pre-Deposit and Revival: Absent stay, appeals dismissed for non-compliance, but revival allowed post-compliance, clarifying no automatic halt. 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 586
Bail/Discharge Revisions: Revisions sans stay don't prevent trial court actions like . 2017 8 Supreme 129
These illustrate: pendency prompts caution but not inaction without stay.
While jurisdiction persists, caveats apply:- Communicated Stay: Halts proceedings; post-communication recalls risk invalidity. 1960 0 Supreme(Ker) 412 1942 0 Supreme(Cal) 11- Knowledge Aliunde: Deliberate ignorance post-informal notice (e.g., affidavit) risks , but formal service needed for binding. 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 59- Statutory Nuances: post-admission bail; no merger revival sans quashal. 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 427 2007 0 Supreme(Ori) 183- Stays: Often illegal sans hearing, but irrelevant here (no stay). 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 427
In , jurisdictional notices must comply with schemes; non-compliance voids proceedings, but sub-judice doesn't auto-stay. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9595
Lower courts generally retain full jurisdiction to recall orders sub-judice before High Courts absent stay communication. Mere notice issuance doesn't divest authority—empowering efficient justice without paralysis.
Key Takeaways:- No stay = Proceed normally.- Communication is king for restraints.- Independent grounds enable recall.- Document everything.
This framework, drawn from precedents like 1960 0 Supreme(Ker) 412, 1942 0 Supreme(Cal) 11, and others, guides practice. For tailored advice, engage legal experts. Stay informed, stay compliant.
References: Listed inline; full texts via court databases.*
#SubJudiceLaw, #LowerCourtRecall, #HighCourtStay
He further submits that it was brought to the notice of the lower Appellate Court that in spite of the same the lower Appellate Court has proceeded to allow the appeal. ... Unfortunately, the same was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court. The compensation amount was released, when the suit was pending for adjudication of the claim of the parties to the lis, which is contrary to the material on record. ... I have heard the learned #HL_STAR....
In the instant case, even before the notice on Section 5 of the Limitation Act was issued, the interim order has been passed by the Court. ... The said order dated 04.12.2021 is also bad for another reason as by an interim order the final relief of recall has been indirectly granted. ... By the interim order the High Court has directed the appellant-Bank to credit a sum of Rs.95,000 in the Current....
The only way that the arbitration proceedings could be restrained is by a judge of the High Court issuing an appropriate order for injunction against the 3rd defendant. There was no such order issued by the Court. ... In any event, the order if issued, would be redundant as the 1st defendant has indicated that he would not want to continue as an arbitrator and further there is a stay of proceedings granted in the 1....
The only way that the arbitration proceedings could be restrained is by a judge of the High Court issuing an appropriate order for injunction against the 3rd defendant. There was no such order issued by the court. ... What would be the effect if this Court allows the plaintiffs present application (i.e. to restrain the arbitration proceeding), whilst the High Court which dealt with the 1st suit had already issued a....
had already issued an order to stay the proceeding of the 1st suit and to proceed with the arbitration? ... In any event, the order if issued, would be redundant as the 1st defendant has indicated that he would not want to continue as an arbitrator and further there is a stay of proceedings granted in the 1st suit. ... There was no such order issued by the Court. Therefore, the contention of subjudice#HL_....
The only way that the arbitration proceedings could be restrained is by a judge of the High Court issuing an appropriate order for injunction against the 3rd defendant. There was no such order issued by the court. ... What would be the effect if this Court allows the plaintiffs present application (i.e. to restrain the arbitration proceeding), whilst the High Court which dealt with the 1st suit had already issued a....
to the order, which is already subjudice in revision. ... The revisional court has issued notices to the parties, fixing so aggrieved. ... from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting and has issued notices to the parties concerned.
It was contended that in SA No.31/2016 what was challenged was only section 13(4) notice under the Act and not the actual possession. It was contended that seeking the stay of the SARFAESI proceedings, the petitioners had moved the High Court by filing W.P. ... Ext.P10 discloses that counsel had contended that notices were not issued in respect of the above claims and that section 13(2) notice was issued only in relation to the recovery of money of Rs. 1,09,00,000/-. ....
Section 148 of the Act can be issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, or is required to be issued by a Faceless Assessment Officer, or whether both the authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, with the final order being passed by the Faceless Unit, is subjudice before the
This Court is not going to examine the validity of the patta issued by the authority concerned as the matter is subjudice before the Revisional Authority i.e. Additional District Collector. 4. ... The instant order has been passed looking to the interest of both parties. In case, the respondents No.3 and 4 feel aggrieved by this order, they would be at liberty to move an application for revival of the petition and recall of this order. 7. ... [2025:....
He would inform that in the regular second appeal pending before the High Court, notice of motion has been issued but again there is no stay granted by the Court. It is argued with vehemence that as the respondent/decree holder neither deposited the balance sale consideration within the period stipulated in the decree nor at the time of filing application for execution in October 2015 and he filed application seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration and extension of time in 2018, the Court has committed a gross error and infirmity by dismissing applicati....
In view of the fact that DRAT cannot entertain any appeal without ensuring the pre-deposit, hence, Appeal is dismissed for want of compliance. 8. Subsequently, on 30/8/2017, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, has passed the following order:- “Appellant has preferred the Appeal, but no stay order by High Court has been granted whatsoever. However, it is made clear that in compliance of the order of High Court, matter may be revived in time.”
Taking note of these facts, this Court passed the order dated May 10, 2016 directing the trial court to proceed to frame the charges and start the trial on day to day basis. Mr. Solanki filed an application for his discharge which was dismissed by the trial court. Against that order, revision petition had been filed before the High Court but no stay was granted. This application for cancellation of bail, thereafter, kept on getting adjourned at the behest of one party or the other.
It was also submitted that since no notice has been issued to the appellants before the order was passed, the High Court erroneously rejected the prayer to recall the order. 7.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court’s orders cannot be maintained because no reason has been indicated as to why the order of the trial court rejecting the prayer in terms of Section 311 of the Code was set aside.
7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court’s order cannot be maintained because no reason has been indicated as to why the order of the trial Court rejecting the prayer in terms of Section 311 of the Code was set aside. It was also submitted that since no notice has been issued to the appellants before the order was passed, the High Court erroneously rejected the prayer to recall the order.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
