SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 801

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Atul Kumar, Ishan Dewan, Deepali, S. K. Verma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Supriya Juneja, Advocate

The Supreme Court's discretion to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court.

Headnote:

Interference - High Court's Reasoning and Conclusion - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, stating that the reasoning and conclusion did not warrant any interference.

Fact of the Case:

The Supreme Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the case record, declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court did not warrant any interference and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. However, the concerned Magistrate was directed to decide the complaint within six months in accordance with the law.

Issues: Interference with High Court's Order

Ratio Decidendi: The reasoning and conclusion of the High Court did not call for any interference by the Supreme Court.

Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and the concerned Magistrate was directed to decide the complaint within six months in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

2. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

3. However, we direct the concerned Magistrate, who is seized of the complaint, to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from today.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top