Back
SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Aditi bhati – Appellant
Versus
Kamal singh bhati – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. special leave petition against high court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's reasons for not interfering with the order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. dismissal of petition due to lack of merit. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
1. The instant special leave petition is directed against the interim order dated 2nd June, 2025 passed by the High Court whereby, while issuing notice on the first appeal preferred by the petitioners, the High Court refused to grant stay on the judgment of the trial Court.
2. We feel that the main application for stay preferred by the petitioners is still pending consideration and thus, the prayer for stay on the judgment of the trial Court can always be made before the High Court.
3. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2025 passed by the High Court.
4. The special leave petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
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.
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 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 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 emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
The court's decision not to interfere in the impugned judgment and the specific observations regarding the learned Single Judge's remarks.
Bail – A lady is entitled to special protection under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
Observations in the order granting bail should be construed only for the purpose of bail and should not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in any other collateral proceedings.
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
