Selvaraj vs. R. Nagarajan
AI Summary
In a significant procedural decision, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) challenging a Madras High Court order, finding no grounds for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. This order underscores the limited scope of the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction in appeals against lower court judgments, confirming the High Court's decision.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The case originated from a Civil Revision Petition (CRPPD No. 1496/2021) in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. An order was passed by the High Court on August 26, 2022. Subsequently, Selvaraj, the petitioner, filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19096/2023 in the Supreme Court of India, challenging this High Court order. The Supreme Court heard the matter on April 23, 2025, and after considering the arguments, dismissed the petition.
Timeline of Events
Civil Revision Petition (CRPPD No. 1496/2021) filed/commenced in High Court of Judicature at Madras.
Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRPPD No. 1496/2021.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed in the Supreme Court of India.
First hearing date for the SLP in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court heard the matter and passed the order dismissing the SLP.
Key Factual Findings
The Court was not satisfied that any case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was made out.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner's counsel likely presented arguments attempting to demonstrate that the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court involved a substantial question of law, grave injustice, or a significant error requiring the Supreme Court's intervention under its extraordinary powers granted by Article 136.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent's counsel likely countered by arguing that the High Court's judgment was well-reasoned, within its jurisdiction, and did not suffer from any infirmity that would warrant interference by the Supreme Court under the strict parameters of Article 136.
Court's Reasoning
The Court, after hearing both parties, determined that it was not satisfied that any case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was made out. This indicates that the Court found no compelling reason or exceptional circumstance to exercise its discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's decision.
- Strict Adherence to Article 136 Scope
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.The special leave petition is dismissed.
- 2.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a summary dismissal of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 without elaborate reasoning, merely stating that no case for interference was made out. It does not lay down any new principle of law or interpret existing statutes in a novel way, thus having limited precedential value.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Not Reached / Adjourned
Before:
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, Hon'ble S.V.N. Bhatti
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Dismissed
Listed On:
23 Apr 2025
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
115867/2023,136109/2023,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.15 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19096/2023
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 26-08-2022 in CRPPD No. 1496/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras]
SELVARAJ Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
R. NAGARAJAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 115867/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 136109/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 23-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
- For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aditi Anil Dani, AOR Mr. Ashwin Kumar Ds, Adv. Mr. Ishan Roy Choudhury, Adv.
- For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. V Balachandran, Adv. M/S. Ksn & Co., AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied that any case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is made out. Digitally signed by GEETA JOSHI Date: 2025.04.24 17:15:53 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(GEETA JOSHI) (NIDHI MATHUR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)