1. Challenge to a High Court Division Bench order via Special Leave Petition. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 968
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Dnyanraj & Ors. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10391 of 2022 With SLP(C) No. 10309 of 2022 (IX)
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Important Points
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of grounds for interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
Subject
Civil Law - Constitutional Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Article 136(1) - Jurisdiction - The court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as it found no grounds for interference with the conclusions drawn by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 and paragraphs 75 to 80 of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, and concluded that the conclusions drawn by the High Court did not warrant interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conclusions drawn by the High Court did not call for any interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution, and therefore dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the conclusions drawn by the High Court warranted interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of grounds for interference with the conclusions drawn by the High Court, as assessed under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and the amount deposited in the Registry of the Court was ordered to be remitted to the credit of District Treasury, Osmanabad, Maharashtra, with disbursement to be done strictly in accordance with law under the supervision of the District Collector within three weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ajit Warrier, Adv., Mr. Angad Kochhar, Adv., Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv., Mr. Sajal Mendiratta, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shroff, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR, Mr. Rajdeep Raut, Adv., Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv., Ms. Rucha A Pande, Adv., Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv., Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Jayant sud, ASG, Mr. Tuhin, AOR, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Adv.
For the Appellant :Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ajit Warrier, Adv., Mr. Angad Kochhar, Adv., Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv., Mr. Sajal Mendiratta, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shroff, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR, Mr. Rajdeep Raut, Adv., Mr. Mahesh P. Shinde, Adv., Ms. Rucha A Pande, Adv., Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv., Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv., Mr. Jayant sud, ASG, Mr. Tuhin, AOR, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Reliance on counter affidavit and specific findings of the High Court to support the dismissal of the petition. (Para 1 )
3. The conclusions reached by the High Court are satisfactory and do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court. (Para 2 )
4. Interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution is not justified if the High Court's conclusions are sound. (Para 2 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed; funds remitted to District Treasury for legal disbursement under District Collector's supervision. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court refuse to interfere with a High Court order under Article 136(1)?
The Supreme Court will refuse to interfere under Article 136(1) of the Constitution when the conclusions drawn by the High Court are considered satisfactory and do not warrant judicial interference. (Para 2 )
7. How are funds deposited in the Court Registry handled upon the dismissal of a petition?
Such funds, including accrued interest, can be remitted to the appropriate government treasury for disbursement strictly in accordance with the law under the supervision of the District Collector. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 in the instant Special Leave Petitions. He has also invited our attention to paragraphs 75 to 80 of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which is presently under challenge.
2. Having considered the entirety of the matter, in our view, the conclusions drawn by the High Court do not call for any interference in our jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The instant Special Leave Petition is therefore, dismissed.
3. The amount of Rupees Two hundred crores which was deposited in the Registry of this Court alongwith interest accrued thereon shall now be remitted to the credit of District Treasury, Osmanabad, Maharashtra and the disbursement from and out of said sum as well as of any additional sums shall be done strictly in accordance with law under the supervision of the District Collector.
4. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within three weeks from today.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
