Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Rajasthan Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
Somi Conveyors Beltings Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Vacation Judge, by which an ex-parte interim order has been passed in favour of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) restraining appellants (official respondents in the writ petition) to issue work order to respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) in pursuant to letter of intent dated 10.06.2024 and NIT dated 07.12.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Vacation Judge passed an ex-parte interim order even without hearing the appellants and without material facts brought to its notice. The appellants applied for vacating stay by filing an application for vacation of stay on 10.07.2024 on various substantial grounds but the application remained pending despite several prayers made for expeditious disposal. Therefore, the said interim order was challenged by filing an appeal, which was disposed off on 06.08.2024 with a request to the learned Single Judge to hear the application for vacating stay at the earliest preferably within a period of one week. However, the application was not considered despite
The court ruled that ex-parte interim orders in public procurement should be avoided to prevent disruption of essential services, emphasizing timely decision-making in such matters.
The Letters Patent allows appeals only against judgments that conclusively affect rights; interim orders lacking such determinations are not appealable.
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
Interlocutory orders can be appealable if they materially affect rights; review jurisdiction is limited to errors visible on the record.
A writ petition pursuing parallel remedies under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is impermissible and affects parties' rights; interim orders must determine substantial issues.
The court affirmed that the Tribunal's rejection of the appellant's request for interim measures was valid due to established insufficient funding and non-compliance, affirming limited grounds for in....
A suspension order under inquiry does not equate to blacklisting; judicial review in tender matters is limited to ensuring no arbitrary actions against public interest.
An order rejecting an amendment to a statement of claim is not an interim award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as it does not determine substantive issues or rights in the arbitration.
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
