In backdrop of Supertech's Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the judgement passed to demolish Twin Towers in Emerald Court in Noida [Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, 2021 Latest Caselaw 356 SC], the Supreme Court has termed the trend as 'disturbing'.

The Top Court noted that repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications are being filed after a final judgment has been passed as part of this trend and that it has "no legal foundation"

Calling it 'abuse of the process of law', the court further stated that the attempt in the present miscellaneous application clearly seek a substantive modification of the judgment of this Court which is not permissible. Referring to Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, the court observed:

"What is contemplated therein is a saving of the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. Order LV Rule 6 cannot be inverted to bypass the provisions for review in Order XLVII in the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The Miscellaneous application is an abuse of the process.

The Bench comprising of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice B V Nagarathna has called for firm discouragement of it as it reduces litigation to a 'gambit.'

It also noted:

"The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind  and weather."

The Court stated that Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions.

Stating that filing of a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law, the Top Court clearly stated that a judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced.

"It is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly [“Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum"]"

With respect to Supertech's plea, the Bench noted that there is another legal principle which is applicable.

"It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence, when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This Court too, has adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way."

Read Order Here:

Read Full Report by LatestLaws here:  Demolition of Supertech's Twin-Towers: SC rejects plea to modify order. Read More

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws