M/S Shushre Securities Pvt Ltd vs M/S Times A & M (India ) Limited & Ors

Name of Court,"No of cases which after conclusion of hearing are

adjourned for orders/clarification

Tis Hazari (Central),14

South (Saket),68

East (Karkardooma),28

South West (Dwarka),Nil

Shahdara (Karkardooma),Nil

Rohini (North West),6

Saket (South East),106

Tis Hazari (West),15

Patiala House Court (New Delhi),19

Rohini (North),20

Karkardooma (North East),3

“8. The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of judgments can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.,

Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in",

open court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.,

The words “some subsequent time†mentioned in Section 353 contemplate the passing of the judgment without undue delay, as delay in the",

pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the principle of law. Such subsequent time can at the most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not,

beyond that time in any case. The pronouncement of judgments in the civil case should not be permitted to go beyond two months.â€​,

Recently, in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera [CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on 18th November, 2019], as also in Y. N. Gupta (Deceased) Thr. LR",

v. M/s. M A Ramzana [CM (M) 1827/2019, decided on 24th December, 2019], this Court had directed as under:-",

“Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera,

While this Court is conscious of the fact that there are pressures on the Trial Courts, non-pronouncement of orders for more than a year cannot be",

held to be justified. It has been observed in several matters that trial courts keep matters `FOR ORDERS’ for months together and sometimes,

orders are not pronounced for even 2-3 years. Thereafter the judicial officer is transferred or posted in some other jurisdiction and the matter has to,

be reargued. Such a practice puts enormous burden on the system and on litigants/lawyers. The usual practice ought to be to pronounce orders within,

the time schedule laid down in the CPC as also the various judgements of the Supreme Court. In civil cases maximum period of two months can be,

taken for pronouncing orders, unless there are exceptional cases or there are very complex issues that are involved.â€​",

Y. N. Gupta (Deceased) Thr. LR v. M/s. M A Ramzana,

The practice of trial courts adjourning matters repeatedly `FOR ORDERS’ and not pronouncing orders, has attained epidemic proportions, as is",

being seen in several matters.,

This petition is reflective of the incessant practice of Trial Courts of repeatedly adjourning a matter for orders, after hearing arguments. A perusal",

of the order sheet of the Appellate Court in this case, which was presided over by two different ld. District & Sessions Judges, shows that since April,",

2019, the appeal is being heard and is being adjourned for orders on almost every date. More than 10 hearings have taken place, however, the orders",

are yet to be pronounced. On each date, either the order-sheet shows that the matter is listed for orders or that it is part-heard.",

…,

The repeated adjourning of matters for orders reflects extremely poorly on the Court system. Litigants would lose faith if orders are not passed by,

the Court after arguments are heard. Such a practice cannot be permitted. Once arguments are heard, the Court has an obligation to pass orders",

within a reasonable time. Repeated hearing of arguments also increases the litigation costs for litigants, as they have to incur expenses for legal",

representation, etc., Such a practice would also make access to justice unaffordable.â€​",

Accordingly, reiterating the directions by this Court in Deepti Khera (supra) and YN Gupta (supra) and the binding judgment of the Supreme Court",

in Anil Rai (supra), the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the respective District Judges in the said districts may take appropriate",

steps in order to ensure that once the arguments are heard, the orders are passed in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and matters are",

not simply adjourned for ‘ORDERS’ and ‘Clarifications’ after arguments are concluded. The report put up by the Registrar General,

along with the data be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions, if any, on the administrative side. The report be also",

retained as part of the judicial record of this petition.,

In this petition, the suit is stated to be listed on 3rd April, 2020 before the Trial Court. After hearing arguments on the leave to defend application,",

the trial Court shall dispose of the same expeditiously and in any event, on or before 30th May, 2020. The petition and all pending applications are",

disposed of. Dasti.,