The Supreme Court has declared that it would use its discretionary power under Article 136 only to correct substantial injustice and not for rectifying technical flaws in a civil dispute.
This was stated in the appeal of SDS Shipping Pvt Ltd vs Jay Container Services Ltd, challenging the order of the Bombay High Court.
In this case, the firm supplying containers for ships complained that its containers were not returned by the shipping company and there was default in the payment of lease charges also.
More From This Section
Some 35 containers were not returned. It filed a suit for Rs 1.61 crore and also sought the appointment of a receiver.
The single-judge of the high court rejected the plea for appointment of a receiver. But the firm was allowed to take appropriate steps to get its dues including arrears.
After further litigation, the shipping company was directed to deposit Rs 82 lakh in three months. This was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 136, in a special leave petition.
The Bench comprising Justice Shivaraj Patil and Justice Arijit Pasayat reduced the amount to Rs 50 lakh.
It said the court would be reluctant to interfere in interim orders passed by the courts below, using its discretionary powers.
Even if the appeal was admitted, the court was not bound to deal with the merits of the case if it felt that the ends of justice did not make it necessary to decide the points raised in the appeal.
Analysing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court said there was no serious dispute relating to the claim for arrears of rentals.
The high court order was to deposit the amount and no liberty had been given to the lesser to withdraw the deposit.