Chiragkumar Premchand Surati vs. The State Of Gujarat
AI Summary
In a significant procedural order, the Supreme Court listed Special Leave Petitions challenging a Gujarat High Court decision for regular hearing. While dismissing a specific application for directions, the Court crucially stipulated that any High Court review order in the matter would be held inoperative for eight weeks and ultimately subject to the Supreme Court's final decision, offering interim protection to the petitioners.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) were filed in the Supreme Court by Chiragkumar Premchand Surati & Ors. against The State of Gujarat & Ors., challenging a final judgment and order dated June 13, 2023, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CA No. 2/2022. Several intervention applications were also filed. On March 18, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the main special leave petitions to be listed in the usual course. A specific application (IA No. 62741/2025) was dismissed. However, the Court provided a crucial safeguard, clarifying that any future decision by the High Court on related review applications would not be implemented for eight weeks from its date and would ultimately be contingent upon the outcome of the pending Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.
Timeline of Events
High Court of Gujarat passes final judgment and order in CA No. 2/2022.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15115/2023 filed in Supreme Court.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15115/2023 registered in Supreme Court.
IA No. 62741/2025 for 'Appropriate Orders/Directions' filed in Supreme Court.
Supreme Court hears the matter, dismisses IA No. 62741/2025, and issues directions regarding High Court review applications.
Key Factual Findings
IA No. 62741/2025 is not to be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.
Source: Current Court Finding
In the event the review applications are decided by the High Court, the same shall not be given effect for a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
Source: Current Court Finding
The outcome of the said review petition shall be subject to the result of the special leave petitions pending before this Court.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
While not explicitly detailed, the petitioners implicitly argued for a stay or specific directions concerning any ongoing High Court review applications to safeguard their position, given their challenge before the Supreme Court. Their application (IA No. 62741/2025) likely sought interim relief to prevent adverse effects during the pendency of the SLPs.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded, but they would generally oppose interim relief sought by the petitioners, aiming to defend the High Court's judgment and its potential review outcomes.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court expressed disinclination to entertain IA No. 62741/2025, leading to its dismissal. However, the Court provided protective directions to ensure that any outcome of review applications in the High Court would not immediately take effect for eight weeks and would remain subject to the Supreme Court's final decision in the pending Special Leave Petitions, thereby upholding the appellate hierarchy and safeguarding the subject matter of the main appeal.
- Emphasis on Judicial Hierarchy and Appellate Review
- Balancing of Interests (protecting petitioners pending final review)
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.List the special leave petitions in usual course.
- 2.I.A. NO.62741/2025 is dismissed.
- 3.In the event the review applications are decided by the High Court the same shall not be given effect to for a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
- 4.The outcome of the said review petition shall be subject to the result of the special leave petitions pending before this Court.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This order is procedural in nature, primarily dealing with the listing of cases and providing an interim safeguard specific to the facts. It does not lay down a new legal principle of general applicability or interpret a statute in a binding manner for future cases beyond its immediate context.
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:
Mention Memo
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Augustine George Masih
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
IA Rejected [62741/2025], List in Due / Usual Course
Listed On:
18 Mar 2025
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
127104/2023,127607/2023,128161/2023,135319/2023,137355/2023,145849/2023,171123/2023,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
COURT NO.2
SECTION III
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 15115/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-06-2023 in CA No. 2/2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad]
CHIRAGKUMAR PREMCHAND SURATI & ORS.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Respondent $(s)$
(IA No. 127607/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 127104/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 171123/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 145849/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 135319/2023 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 137355/2023 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 128161/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH SLP(C) No. 15116/2023 (III) (IA No.127300/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date: 18-03-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Paresh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Madhulika, Adv. Mr. Bheem Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR For Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Srujana Suman Mund, Adv. Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Anmol Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Priank Adhyaru,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Sharmila Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Pawan R Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Anmol Wadhwa, Adv. M/S. Unuc Legal Llp, AOR Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Mr. Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Ms. Hetvi K. Patel, Adv. Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. Dr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prithviraj Jadeja, Adv. Mr. Kush Goel, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Aakash Sheth, AOR UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R
List the special leave petitions in usual course.
I.A. NO.62741/2025
1. We are not inclined to entertain this application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
2. However, it is made clear that in the event the review applications are decided by the High Court the same shall not be given effect to for a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
3. It is further made clear that the outcome of the said review petition shall be subject to the result of the special leave petitions pending before this Court.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2