Page 38 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

A130 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

would be the need of “complete justice” in a cause or matter would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that pow-
er the Court would take into consideration the express provisions of a sub-
stantive statute. Once this Court has taken seisin of a case, cause or matter, it
has power to pass any order or issue direction as may be necessary to do
complete justice in the matter. This has been the consistent view of this Court
as would appear from the decisions of this Court in State of U.P. v. Poosu,
(1976) 3 SCR 1005 : (AIR 1976 SC 1750); Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain, (1986) 1
SCC 75: (AIR 1986 SC 441); Navnit R. Kamani v. R.R. Kamani, (1988) 4 SCC 387:
(AIR 1989 SC 9); B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, (1966) 3 SCR 682 : (AIR 1966
SC 1942); Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (AIR 1965 SC 745) (supra); and Har-
bans Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1982 SC 849) (supra). …..”
[Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat
and others - AIR 1991 SC 2176]
It was observed in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction
Company (P) Ltd. and Another case that the jurisdiction and powers of this Court
under Article 142 are supplementary in nature and are provided to do complete
justice in any matter… that is, the power under Article 142 is meant to supple-
ment the existing legal framework to do complete justice between the parties and
not to supplant it and hence this power need be left undefined and uncatalogued
so that it remains elastic enough to be moulded to suit the given situation and
because this power has been conferred only upon Hon’ble Supreme Court, and
on no one else, is itself an assurance that it will be used with due restraint and
circumspection, keeping in view the ultimate object of doing complete justice
between the parties :
“15. The nature and ambit of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the
Constitution.
Article 142 (1) of the Constitution of India reads :
“……...”
16. In re : Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584 : (1995 AIR SCW 3488),
this Court dealt with the scope and width of the power of this Court under
Article 142. After referring to the earlier decisions of the Court in extenso, it is
held that “statutory provisions cannot override the constitutional provisions
and Article 142(1) being a constitutional power it cannot be limited or condi-
tioned by any statutory provision. (Para 48)”. It is also held that “the jurisdic-
tion and powers of this Court under Article 142 are supplementary in nature
and are provided to do complete justice in any matter...” In other words, the
power under Article 142 is meant to supplement the existing legal framework
to do complete justice between the parties - and not to supplant it. It is con-
ceived to meet situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tack-
led by the existing provisions of law. As a matter of fact, we think it advisable
to leave this power undefined and uncatalogued so that it remains elastic
enough to be moulded to suit the given situation. The very fact that this pow-
er is conferred only upon this Court, and on no one else, is itself and assur-
ance that it will be used with due restraint and circumspection, keeping in
view the ultimate object of doing complete justice between the parties. ….”
[Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and
Another - AIR 1996 SC 2005]
This decision was relied in Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P and

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  38