Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Mohd. Tahir Hussain (in J.C. ) – Appellant
Versus
State of Nct of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10391 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 16-09-2022 in Crlma No. 18837 of 2022 in Crl. M.C. 4654 of 2022 Passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
Decided On : 14-11-2022
Interim Order - High Court - The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition assailing the interim order passed by the High Court, as the matter was still sub-judice before the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to challenge the interim order passed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the interim order, as the matter was still pending before the High Court.
Issues: Assailing the interim order passed by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order due to the matter being sub-judice before the High Court.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory application(s) were disposed of.
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed assailing the interim order passed by the High Court dated 16.09.2022.
2. It reveals that taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner, which prima facie persuaded the High Court to issue notice to call upon the respondents and posted for hearing on 25.01.2023.
3. After hearing learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, we find no reason to interfere with the interim order, as the matter is still sub-judice before the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
The court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's request for interim protection, leading to the dissolution of the interim protection granted earlier.
Interlocutory orders are generally not interfered with by higher courts.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order, emphasizing that the appeal process must be respected and that stay applications may be renewed at the appropriate level.
Courts generally defer to the decisions of lower courts unless there is a clear error on the record.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
The court's decision emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
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 emphasized the need for earlier disposal of the writ petition and completion of pleadings, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of either party.
The court's decision not to interfere in the impugned judgment and the specific observations regarding the learned Single Judge's remarks.
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
