Introduction 

Justice Pankaj Mithal was born on 17^th June 1961 in Meerut. He graduated from the University of Allahabad and later obtained his law degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in 1985. 

Career 

• Justice Pankaj Mithal was enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1985. 
• He dealt with cases on the civil side including rent control, land acquisition, education and constitutional matters. 
• He served as the judge of the Allahabad High Court till 3rd January 2021. 
• He was later elevated as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 4^th January 2021. 
• He later took oath as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on 14^th October 2022. 
• He was elevated to the Supreme Court on 6th February 2023 and will retire on 16th June 2026. 

Notable Judgments 

• High Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 
  • The Court in this case laid down few important parameters which are relevant under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950:  
    • The jurisdiction under Article 142 is to do complete justice and it cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour.  
    • Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants.  
    • The Court while exercising the power under this provision can always issue procedural directions for streamlining procedural aspects but this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it.  
    • The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.
• Dani Wooltex Corporation v. Sheil Properties (P) Ltd. (2024) 
  • The Supreme Court (SC) held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of A&C Act can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. 
  • Unless the Arbitral Tribunal records its satisfaction based on the material on record that proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible, the power under Section 32(2)(c) cannot be exercised. If the said power is exercised casually, it will defeat the very object of enacting the A&C Act. 
  • Abandonment by the claimant of his claim may be grounds for saying that the arbitral proceedings have become unnecessary. However, the abandonment must be established. Abandonment can be either express or implied. Abandonment cannot be readily inferred. 
  • The SC observed that merely because a claimant, after filing his statement of claim, does not move the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for the hearing, it cannot be said that the claimant has abandoned his claim. 
  • The court held that only because a claimant, after filing his statement of claim, does not move the Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for the hearing, the failure of the claimant, per se, will not amount to the abandonment of the claim. 
• Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi (2023)  
  • The Supreme Court here first of all observed that Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act (TOPA) provides that transfer of ownership of the property never happens unless document contemplated under Section 54 is executed and registered under Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908. 
  • The Court here cited the judgment of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana and othrs. (2009) where the Supreme Court deprecates the practise of transferring an immovable property by executing the agreement to sell, power of attorney and the will instead of registered conveyance deed. 
  • Further, the Court observed that since no document was executed in pursuance of the power of attorney it is of no consequence. Similarly, will is of no consequence as it comes into force after the death of the executant. 
  • The Court further observed that an agreement to sell indeed cannot transfer proprietary right but by virtue of Section 53A of TOPA the transferor cannot disturb the possession of the plaintiff as he has possessory rights over the property. 
• SK Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshari @ Nand Lal Bayes & Ors. (2024)  
  • A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that a co-owner is not competent to transfer the entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated so as to bind the other co-owners.     
  • It was further observed that the sale deed may be a valid document in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 1(TPA) to the extent of the share of co-owner in the property.