Back
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dnyanraj – Respondent
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of grounds for interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
The main legal point established is that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not warrant interference with the High Court's order.
The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, affirming no substantial grounds for intervention under Article 136.
A second special leave petition is not maintainable after the first is withdrawn without permission to re-approach the court.
The court's discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to grant or refuse special leave to appeal.
The court exercised its discretion to condone delay and dismissed the petition under Article 136 without interference, leaving law questions open.
Superior courts will not interfere with high court orders in the absence of a compelling legal justification, and frivolous petitions by the state or parties may invite the imposition of costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
