1. Challenge to High Court judgment and order via Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1384
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
Important Points
The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi.
Subject
Civil Law - Appeal
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Adv., Mr. B.B. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Rishi Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Karan Luthra, Adv., Mr. Ankit Banati, Adv., Ms. Manvi Agarwal, Adv., Mr. E.C. Agarwala, Aor, For the Appellant, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv., Mr. Dhritiman Roy, Adv., Ms. Samriddhi Shukla, Adv., Mr. Pavan Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Jayavardhan Singh, Adv., M/S. Khaitan & Co., Aor, For the Respondent.
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Adv., Mr. B.B. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Rishi Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv., Mr. Karan Luthra, Adv., Mr. Ankit Banati, Adv., Ms. Manvi Agarwal, Adv., Mr. E.C. Agarwala, Aor, For the Appellant, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv., Mr. Dhritiman Roy, Adv., Ms. Samriddhi Shukla, Adv., Mr. Pavan Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Jayavardhan Singh, Adv., M/S. Khaitan & Co., Aor, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. No grounds found to interfere with the impugned judgment; petitioner's contentions to be considered uninfluenced by High Court observations. (Para 2 )
3. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to determine grounds for interference with High Court judgments. (Para 2 )
4. Special leave petition and pending applications disposed of. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. What is the effect of the Supreme Court's refusal to interfere with a High Court order under Article 136?
The Supreme Court may dispose of the special leave petition without interfering with the impugned judgment, while clarifying that the parties' reserved contentions shall be considered uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court. (Para 2 )
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.
