desk
Share
News Topical, Digital Desk : The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted protection from arrest for the next two weeks to Anupam Mittal, founder of matrimonial portal Shaadi.com, and two other accused in a fraud case.
The case stems from a complaint by a Hyderabad woman who alleged she was defrauded of ₹1.1 million (approximately $1.1 million) through a fake profile on the portal. She argued that the platform failed to verify user details.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria set aside the earlier order of the Telangana High Court which had refused to quash the proceedings against Mittal.
The Supreme Court, while sending the case back to the High Court, said, "Since the quashing petition was not decided on the merits, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. In the meantime, the petitioner will appeal to the High Court for interim relief. No coercive action will be taken against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from today."
Senior advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing Mittal, argued that Shaadi.com only acts as a matchmaker. He questioned the court, "I am only providing matching services. We are fully cooperating with the investigation, but why have I been made an accused in this case?"
The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the facts of the case. The Telangana High Court will now have to reconsider the matter. Last year, the High Court refused to quash the FIR filed against Mittal and the other accused, Vignesh and Satish, after which the matter reached the Supreme Court. On June 26, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and issued a notice to the Telangana government.
Delay in judgments a marked disease, must be eradicated: Supreme Court
Underlining the need to ensure timely justice, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the practice of high courts reserving judgments for months without making them public is a "marked disease". It is imperative to eradicate it completely.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was hearing a plea which said that the Jharkhand High Court had pronounced its verdict orally on December 4 last year while dismissing a petition and the verdict has not been uploaded even after two months.
The bench ordered that the full judgment be made available to the lawyers by the end of next week. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the plaintiff, argued that the situation amounted to "playing with the dignity of the law."
Commenting on the judges' working style, Chief Justice Surya Kant said, "Some judges are extremely hardworking, hearing numerous cases and reserving verdicts, but then holding off for long periods. This is not a personal accusation, but a challenge to the entire judiciary. It is a disease, and it cannot be allowed to spread."
The Chief Justice also expressed concern that in many cases, even after the arguments are completed, the cases are repeatedly listed for further directions, leading to unnecessary litigation.
Citing his experience, he said, "In my 15 years as a High Court judge, I have never reserved a judgment and not delivered it within three months." He assured that he would raise this issue prominently at the upcoming conference of Chief Justices of High Courts.
--Advertisement--
