Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Hero Moto Corp. Limited – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Munjal & Ors.. – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4211/2022
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Fact of the Case:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court clarified that all contentions of the parties are reserved and made it clear that the contentions of the petitioner shall be considered uninfluenced by any observation(s) made by the High Court.
Issues: No specific issues mentioned in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi.
Final Decision: The special leave petition is disposed of, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has clarified that all contentions of the parties are reserved. It is made clear that the contentions of the petitioner herein shall be considered uninfluenced by any observation(s) made by the High Court.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi.
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 Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, affirming no substantial grounds for intervention under Article 136.
The court's discretion to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136(1) is influenced by the thorough consideration and negation of challenges by the lower court.
The court's decision not to interfere in the impugned judgment and the specific observations regarding the learned Single Judge's remarks.
The court exercised its discretion to condone delay and dismissed the petition under Article 136 without interference, leaving law questions open.
The court's decision clarified that certain observations made in the judgment regarding the applicability of specific sections and sanction shall not be binding for future stages.
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.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to grant bail in a criminal proceeding.
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
