Court Revisits Special Leave Petitions Amid Urgent Circumstances.
13 August 2024
Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law
In a significant recent ruling, the High Court has revisited its earlier order concerning special leave petitions related to the case of S. Narahari vs. S.R. Kumar. The court's decision on July 29, 2024, had postponed the hearing of these petitions indefinitely, pending the outcome of a larger Bench's deliberations on a key question referred by a coordinate Bench. However, a subsequent communication from the respondents has prompted a reevaluation of that stance.
Background:
The initial order to adjourn the hearing sine die was based on the court's prima facie disagreement with the conclusions drawn in the S. Narahari case. The court cited a precedent from M/s. Upadhyay & Co. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1999), which asserted that the principles from Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, also apply to special leave petitions. This perspective, however, had not been adequately considered by the coordinate Bench in the Narahari decision.
Recent Developments:
Following the July 29 order, the situation escalated when the respondents issued a communication on July 31, 2024, demanding that members of the petitioning Association vacate their occupied spaces and deposit certain amounts within 15 days. This development raised immediate concerns about potential harm to the members, prompting the court to reconsider its previous order.
Court's Reassessment:
After hearing arguments from Mr. Mukherjee, a senior counsel representing the petitioners, the court expressed that it would be unjust to dismiss the special leave petitions at this stage. If the larger Bench ultimately rules favorably for the members of the petitioning Association, it would allow for a new round of special leave petitions, despite previous withdrawals and unsuccessful review attempts in the High Court.
Notice and Stay Granted:
In a crucial decision, the court has issued notices on both the special leave petitions and the application for a stay, with a returnable date set for four weeks. The court has also permitted dasti, allowing for immediate service of notice.
Protection for Petitioners:
Crucially, the court has temporarily protected the members of the petitioning Association by ordering that they cannot be dislodged from their current spaces. They will be allowed to continue their business operations, ensuring that their rights and interests are safeguarded while the case is under consideration.
Conclusion:
This ruling underscores the court's commitment to justice and the protection of individuals' rights amid ongoing legal proceedings. As the situation develops, all eyes will be on the larger Bench's deliberations, which could have far-reaching implications for the petitioning Association and similar cases in the future.