New Delhi: Terming very unusual, the Supreme Court on Friday sought a sealed cover report in four weeks from the Registrar General of the Madras High Court explaining the circumstances under which two different orders were passed by a division bench on September 1 in a civil case. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and B V Nagarathna took note of the submissions of senior advocate K Subramanian, appearing for a party, that the order, which was pronounced in the open court, was different from the certified copy he had received.
The plea also alleged that two different orders pertaining to the case with identical proceedings were posted on the court's website at two different points in time. A very unusual situation has been brought to our notice by counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench of the High Court concluded the hearing on August 29, 2022. On September 1, the Bench pronounced its order in open court, it said. The bench perused the order, pronounced by the Madras High Court, which was downloaded from the high court website.
But after two days, the order was replaced and a different order was uploaded, it said, adding that a certified copy of the different order of the same case has been produced. We have gone through both orders. Certain paragraphs are completely missing and deleted from the order that is now available on the website of the High Court, it said, adding that the matter needed further inquiry. It then directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to submit a report in a sealed cover within four weeks explaining the circumstances under which two different orders were passed by a division bench of the high court.
The order was passed in the matter of J Mohamed Nazir Vs Mahasemam Trust. Subramanian, appearing for petitioner Nazir, alleged that the operative portion containing a direction issued to the other party to deposit Rs 115 crore in a Bank at Annanagar was deleted subsequently. The senior lawyer told the bench that in his 50 years of practice he has not come across any such thing. The bench concurred with his contention. The bench directed both the parties to maintain status quo as per the earlier order with regard to the case. (PTI)
