Sudipta Chakrobarty vs Ranaghat Sd Hospital on 15 February, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Sudipta Chakrobarty vs Ranaghat Sd Hospital on 15 February, 2021

Author: Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi

                                                                    REPORTABLE


                                     SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    CIVIL APPEAL No.9404/2019


                  SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.                         ….Appellant(s)


                                               VERSUS

                RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.                      ….Respondent(s)


                                               ORDER

In the present case, the reasoned order was passed on

20.12.2019 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission (“National Commission” for short) in C.A.

No.9404 of 2019. A fresh civil appeal was filed before this

Court being C.A. No.6476 of 2020, which has been dismissed

vide Order dated 06.3.2020.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
This Court had vide Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the
Date: 2021.02.18
16:36:09 IST
Reason:

Registrar of the National Commission to submit a Report

1
stating the number of cases in which reasoned judgments had

not been passed, even though the operative order had been

pronounced in Court. By the report dated 27.7.2020, we have

been informed that as on 20.12.2019, there were 85 such

cases in which the operative order had been pronounced, but

reasoned judgments were not delivered so far.

The fact which has been brought to our notice by the

Registrar of the Commission can, in no manner, be

countenanced that between the date of operative portion of

the order and the reasons are yet to be provided, or the

hiatus period is much more than what has been observed to

be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of

reserved judgments. In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdev

Singh Talwandi 1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the

Constitution Bench of this Court, as far back in 1983, drew

the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties

which were caused on account of a practice which was being

adopted by the adjudicating authorities including High

Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative

2
part of the orders without supporting reasons. This was later

again discussed by this Court in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar

2001(7) SCC 318.

Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are

being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to

avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the

reasons can be scrutinized. It indeed amounts to defeating

the rights of the party aggrieved to challenge the impugned

judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable

to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.

The afore­mentioned principle has been emphatically

restated by this Court on several occasions including in

Zahira Habibulla M. Sheikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

& Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 80­82]; Mangat Ram Vs.

State of Haryana [2008(7) SCC 96 paras 5­10]; Ajay Singh

& Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [AIR 2017

SC 310] and more recently in Balaji Baliram Mupade &

Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Civil Appeal No.

3
3564 of 2020 pronounced on 29.10.2020) Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaixhu Xie & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.

4022 of 2020 pronounced on 11.12.2020) and SJVNL Vs.

M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021

pronounced on 12.02.2021) wherein the delay in delivery of

judgments has been observed to be in violation of Article 21

of the Constitution of India and the problems gets aggravated

when the operative portion is made available early, and the

reasons follow much later, or are not made available for an

indefinite period.

In the instant case, the operative order was

pronounced on 26.04.2019, and in the reasons disclosed,

there is a hiatus period of eight months.

Let this Order be placed before the President of the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to look

into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practice

is discontinued, and the reasoned Judgment is passed

alongwith the operative order. We would like to observe that

4
in all matters where reasons are yet to be delivered, it must

be ensured that the same are made available to the litigating

parties positively within a period of two months.

With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

………………………J.

[INDU MALHOTRA]

……………………..J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

NEW DELHI;

15th FEBRUARY, 2021

5



Source link