No Automatic Vacation Of Stay Orders Of HCs On Civil & Criminal Trials : Supreme Court Overturns 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

 In other words, applying the above analogy or principle, the stay order granted in any proceedings would not automatically stand vacated on the expiry of a particular period until and unless an application to that effect has been filed by the other side and is decided following the principles of natural justice by a speaking order. {Para 46}

47. Sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing injustice. Asian ResurfacingAsian Resurfacing is a clear example of the same. Such a situation created ought to be avoided in the normal course or if at all it arises be remedied at the earliest. In doing so, we have to adopt a practical and a more pragmatic approach rather than a technical one which may create more problems burdening the courts with superfluous or useless work. It is well said that useless work drives out the useful work. Accordingly, it is expedient in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023.

Decided On: 29.02.2024

High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I., Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Authored By : Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, Pankaj Mithal

Citation: MANU/SC/0149/2024.

Print Page

Bombay High Court Directs Assessee To Pay Rs.25,000 to Assessing Officer As The Stay Order Was Not Proactively Communicated

 Mr. Naveen Kumar has explained that, (a) the matters were getting time barred; (b) he was only informed that the stay in terms of prayer clause (b) has been granted but what is prayer (b) has not been explained; and (c) he was informed of the Order only on 30th March, 2022. {Para 2}

3. We totally disapprove the conduct of Petitioner. On an urgent circulation granted, this Court on 14th March, 2022 stood over the matter to 11th April, 2022 and in the meanwhile, granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). Petitioner after obtaining the urgent order from this Court informed the Assessing Officer about the order only after it received a notice dated 29th March, 2022. Petitioner should have been proactive and promptly communicated the stay granted by this Court to the Assessing Officer so that he would have had enough time to make enquiries with his Advocate and also check on the website about orders passed.

4. In the circumstances, we accept the explanation of Mr. Naveen Kumar. Petitioner is also directed to pay within a period of two weeks from today, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Mr. Naveen Kumar to take care of the expenses incurred by Mr. Naveen Kumar to travel to Mumbai and for staying in Mumbai to attend to this matter. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition (L) No. 4659 of 2022

Decided On: 04.05.2022

Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.R. Shriram and N.R. Borkar, JJ.

Citation: MANU/MH/1728/2022

Print Page

Are directions of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited applicable to interim orders that do not stay the trial of civil or criminal cases?

 To be more specific, the issue as urged by the petitioner is as to whether the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 of its decision in "Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency' case, can be construed to mean that in cases wherein interim orders in the nature of stay or injunction are passed and which have continued to remain in operation for more than six months, would stand automatically vacated after a period of six months of such orders being passed. {Para 10}

40. In conclusion, it needs to be observed that the directions of the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 and 37 in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited, operate only qua the criminal and civil cases pending trial, and such directions cannot be construed to be applicable to the other category of orders in proceedings which do not stay the trial of the civil or criminal cases as observed in paragraph 30 above. Such orders of the Supreme Court are also not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunals. Thus, the tribunal was not correct in passing the impugned order as also applying the government circular dated 6 May, 2021.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5483 of 2021

Decided On: 18.04.2022

 Devsing Ramchandra Chavan  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1337/2022

Print Page

Whether interim order ends if the proceeding in which stay is granted is dismissed?

  From the above discussion, it is clear that imposition of a stay on the operation of an order means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order. However, it does not mean that the stayed order is wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed. Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. {Para 24}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2417 OF 2022 

 STATE OF U.P. THR. SECRETARY AND ORS. Vs PREM CHOPRA

Print Page

Whether a party should pay interest on the amount payable by him which he has not paid due to stay order after the dismissal of that proceeding?

When the interim order was in force, the recovery of license fee was temporarily suspended. The restraint was only against the Department not to recover the license fee. There was no prohibition for the respondent to deposit the balance of license fee. {Para 18}

24. From the above discussion, it is clear that imposition of a stay on the operation of an order means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order. However, it does not mean that the stayed order is wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed. Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. 

25. Coming to the facts of the present case, the respondent was not successful in his challenge to the notice dated 06.01.2003 demanding the balance of license fee before the Authorities under the Act. Therefore, he filed the writ petition bearing Misc. Single No.2582 of 2003 before the High Court wherein the High Court, by an interim order, stayed the recovery of the monthly instalment of license fee for the months January 2003 to March 2003, subject to deposit of Rs.2,75,000/within a period of six weeks before the District Excise Officer. It is not disputed that this amount of Rs.2,75,000/was deposited by the respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court for nonprosecution vide Order dated 21.12.2015. On 23.12.2017, the respondent deposited the remaining amount of Rs.3,68,562/towards license fee. However, the respondent did not make payment of interest to the Department. The writ petition was restored on 19.01.2018. In the meantime, the appellants issued a notice calling upon the respondent to pay Rs.10,08,210.51/towards interest due. The High Court held that the respondent was not liable to pay interest as he was under the protection of the interim order. Given the settled position of law, in our view the High Court has erred in holding that the respondent was not liable to pay interest due to the protection given under the interim order.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2417 OF 2022 

 STATE OF U.P. THR. SECRETARY AND ORS. Vs PREM CHOPRA

Coram: S. ABDUL NAZEER; VIKRAM NATH; JJ. 

Author: S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

Dated: March 25, 2022 

Print Page

Whether Magistrate or trial court can stay its bail order for a specific time?

  The learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 contended that bail order is passed after hearing the prosecution and putting proper conditions and hence there is no power of stay that can be exercised by trial Court. I cannot accept this. For good reasons and in the interest of justice such power can always be reasonably exercised.

{Para 15}

16. Section 309 falls in Chapter XXIV which deals with general provisions as to inquiries and trials. In my opinion, under Section 309(1) when the learned Magistrate can stay or adjourn the inquiry or the proceedings it includes the power to stay his own orders including bail order for good reasons. The power is incidental in nature and meant for properly regulating enquiry and trial. The underlying purpose is to hold the proceedings speedily and to punish the guilty effectively and early or release the innocent. It is not possible to hold that the Magistrate or trial Court is not having such power. He can give reasons and stay the same for a particular period or refuse to stay the same. Similarly, he can make the same operative for the given reasons after a particular period or refuse the prayer made on behalf of the party. We can visualise the cases where bail order is passed in serious offences involving smuggling or narcotic drugs. In many of these cases foreign nationals are involved. If bail is granted and the order is not stayed even for some reasonable time to enable the prosecution to approach the higher Court, it will be extremely difficult to effectively approach the higher Court and deal with accused. In the meanwhile, the person may become scarce and may not be available. This is also the experience. Therefore, the power of stay can be exercised by the learned Magistrate or trial Court for particular reasonable time. In fact, the apex Court expressed its anxiety while making observations in the judgment mentioned above. It is not only the interest of an individual but the interest of the community is also required to be looked into. Further, the observations made by the apex Court in , as quoted above, go to show that merely because it is not mentioned in the specific words in Section 309(1) that the subordinate Courts i.e. Magistrate or the trial Court can stay its order of bail for specific period cannot be followed that it has no such power. I hold that there is such power. Therefore, the observations made by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to stay the operation of the order for a few days or to make the same operative from 3rd September 1993 on the ground "that there is no provision to that effect in Criminal Procedure Code" are erroneous. But he could have declined to exercise the power considering the facts and circumstances. Discretion can be exercised judicially.

Bombay High Court

C.P. Nangia, Assistant Collector ... vs Omprakash Aggarwal And Another on 22 September, 1993

Citations: 1994 CriLJ 2160

Bench: P Patankar

Print Page