Headline
The Supreme Court of India ruled that Writ Courts should not Intervene in technical violations without injustice.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India stated that writ courts should not intervene merely in statutory violations cases unless they result in actual injustice. The Court set aside the order of the High Court that had annulled an auction due to a technical lapse,stressing that equity must be considered while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.
Key Facts
- Case Name: M.S. Sanjay vs. Indian Bank & Ors.,
- Judges Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
- The appellant bought a mortgaged property in the auction of 2007, conducted after the borrower defaulted.
- The guarantor (not the borrower) challenged the auction in 2008, quoting a 15-day notice issue.
- The High Court annulled the auction in 2019 depending upon its technicality, despite the appellant having spent ₹1.5 crore on construction.
Legal Insights
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Indian Constitution is discretionary, and courts should follow equity over mere technicalities.
- Depending upon the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (1980), the Court held that legal norms should stick with real-world justice.
Impact
- Reinforces judicial discretion in writ petitions.
- Safeguards auction purchasers from useless litigation.
- Ensures justice should prevail over technical lapses.
Why It Matters
This ruling of the Supreme Court controls misuse of writ jurisdiction and protects genuine buyers from fake and fraudulent challenges, ensuring that justice is not delayed due to procedural technicalities.
Source
