Lawgic Simplified

Justice Rohit Deo, a judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, announced his resignation on personal grounds during a courtroom session in Nagpur.  The matters scheduled before him for the day were discharged following the announcement. Appointed to the Bombay High Court in June 2017, he was originally set to retire in December 2025. Justice Deo apologized to those present in the court, stating that he scolded them in an effort to encourage improvement. He expressed his resignation, mentioning that he cannot work against his self-respect. He later confirmed to reporters that he has submitted his resignation letter to the President of India due to personal reasons. Notably, in 2022, Justice Deo had acquitted a former Delhi University professor in a case involving alleged Maoist links. However, the Supreme Court stayed the order and instructed the Nagpur bench to rehear the case. Justice Deo had also recently stayed the implementation of a Maharashtra Government Resolution relate...

In a recent judgment dated 21st April 2023, the Court ordered the release of the petitioners on probation within two weeks from the said date. However, the petitioners were not released as per the court's order, leading to the filing of a Contempt Petition by the petitioners. In response to the Contempt Petition, the respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating that the petitioners have been released, but there was no explanation provided for the significant delay in their release. The Court noted that the respondents did not seek an extension of time from the Court. While the Court decided not to initiate any further action under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against the respondents, it directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay costs amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to each petitioner within one month from the date of the judgment. Thus, the Contempt Petition was disposed of with the above directions and costs imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh for the del...

The Allahabad High Court ruled that every Court and Tribunal possess inherent power to set aside an ex-parte order as a form of 'procedural review,' distinct from the statutory power to review a case on merits. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that revenue authorities can recall an ex-parte order to correct procedural defects and ensure justice between the parties. This inherent power allows the Court or Tribunal to correct procedural illegality that invalidates the proceedings and the order itself.  The case in question involved a recall application against an ex-parte order passed under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code. The Court held that a recall application can be maintained by non-parties if they are necessary parties to the proceedings.  The judgment emphasizes the principle of natural justice that no adverse orders should be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, and a recall can be sought to correct procedural errors.  The Court clarif...