$~6 & 7

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ARB.P. 241/2025

ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LTD. .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Ms. Charu

Modi, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Mr. Chandra Raj Chauhan & Ms.

Shahniya, Advs.

versus

SAKET INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Satyam Dwivedi & Ms. Pratiksha

Dhanik, Advs.

+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 288/2024, I.A. 38412/2024, I.A. 44191/2024,

I.A. 45227/2024, I.A. 11123/2025, I.A. 15621/2025 & I.A.

27562/2025

ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Ms. Charu

Modi, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Mr. Chandra Raj Chauhan & Ms.

Shahniya, Advs.

versus

SAKET INFRADEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND ORS.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Satyam Dwivedi & Ms. Pratiksha

Dhanik, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time.

2. Put up on 02.02.2026.

3. No further order is called for with regard to the interim order passed on 05.09.2024 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in “High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors.”, Criminal Appeal No. 3589/2023 wherein the view earlier taken by the Supreme Court in “Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299” was not concurred with and it was held that there cannot be an automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below:

“34. At the same time, we cannot ignore that once the High Court stays a trial, it takes a very long time for the High Court to decide the main case. To avoid any prejudice to the opposite parties, while granting ex-parte ad-interim relief without hearing the affected parties, the High Courts should normally grant ad-interim relief for a limited duration. After hearing the contesting parties, the Court may or may not confirm the earlier ad-interim order. Ad-interim relief, once granted, can be vacated or affirmed only after application of mind by the concerned Court. Hence, the Courts must give necessary priority to the hearing of the prayer for interim relief where ad-interim relief has been granted. Though the High Court is not expected to record detailed reasons while dealing with the prayer for the grant of stay or interim relief, the order must give sufficient indication of the application of mind to the relevant factors.

35. An interim order passed after hearing the contesting parties cannot be vacated by the High Court without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the party whose prayer for interim relief has been granted. Even if interim relief is granted after hearing both sides, as observed earlier, the aggrieved party is not precluded from applying for vacating the same on the available grounds. In such a case, the High Court must give necessary priority to the hearing of applications for vacating the stay, if the main case cannot be immediately taken up for hearing. Applications for vacating interim reliefs cannot be kept pending for an inordinately long time. The High Courts cannot take recourse to the easy option of directing that the same should be heard along with the main case. The same principles will apply where ad-interim relief is granted. If an ad-interim order continues for a long time, the affected party can always apply for vacating ad-interim relief. The High Court is expected to take up even such applications on a priority basis. If an application for vacating ex-parte ad interim relief is filed on the ground of suppression of facts, the same must be taken up at the earliest.

D. CONCLUSIONS

36. Hence, with greatest respect to the Bench which decided the case, we are unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing. We hold that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. We do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day-