Chiragkumar Premchand Surati vs. The State Of Gujarat
AI Summary
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition challenging a Gujarat High Court order, condoning a delay in filing and granting an interim stay. This decision offers temporary relief to the petitioners, Jadav Jitendrasinh Karansinh & Ors., whose challenge to the High Court's judgment is now formally before the apex court for detailed consideration, highlighting the critical procedural aspects in high-stakes legal battles.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The present matter is a Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by Jadav Jitendrasinh Karansinh & Ors. against the State of Gujarat & Anr., challenging a final judgment and order dated June 26, 2024, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No. 852/2023. The petitioners sought condonation of delay in refiling/curing defects and permission to file additional documents, along with exemption from filing official transcript. During the hearing on April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, issued notice to the respondents, and granted an interim stay on the consequential effect of the impugned High Court order. The case has been tagged with another Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15115/2023.
Timeline of Events
Filing of main case SLP(C) 24915/2023 (for tagged case, giving context of broader litigation)
Registration of main case SLP(C) 15115/2023 (for tagged case)
Impugned final judgment and order passed by High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 852/2023.
Diary No. 44063/2024 for the present SLP (Civil) filed.
Hearing in the Supreme Court; delay condoned, notice issued, interim stay granted, and case tagged.
Key Factual Findings
Delay in refiling/curing defects is condoned.
Source: Current Court Finding
Prima facie case established for issuing notice and granting interim relief.
Source: Current Court Finding
The impugned order is LPA No. 852/2023 dated 26-06-2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners, through their counsel, argued for the condonation of delay in refiling/curing defects of their Special Leave Petition. They implicitly requested the issuance of notice to the respondents and sought an interim stay on the consequential effect of the impugned High Court order.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent's counsel did not appear at this hearing, thus no arguments were presented from their side at this stage regarding the condonation of delay, issuance of notice, or interim relief.
Court's Reasoning
The Court condoned the delay, indicating that the explanation provided for the delay in refiling/curing defects was found satisfactory. The decision to issue notice implies that the Court found prima facie merit in the Special Leave Petition, warranting a response from the respondents. The grant of an interim stay on the consequential effect of the impugned order suggests that the Court found a strong prima facie case for the petitioners, and that the balance of convenience was in their favour, or that irreparable harm might be caused if the High Court's order was implemented during the pendency of the SLP.
- Emphasis on Natural Justice
- Emphasis on Substantial Justice over Procedural Rigidity
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Delay in refiling/curing defects is condoned.
- 2.Issue notice to the respondent(s).
- 3.Liberty is granted to the petitioner(s) to serve notice through the Standing Counsel for the respondent(s) in addition to the usual mode.
- 4.There shall be a stay of the consequential effect of the impugned order.
- 5.The matter is to be tagged with SLP(C) No. 15115/2023.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a procedural order regarding the admission of a Special Leave Petition, condonation of delay, and grant of interim relief. It does not lay down any substantive legal principle and is specific to the facts of this case.
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
ITEM NO.13
COURT NO.2
SECTION III
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 44063/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-06-2024 in LPA No. 852/2023 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad<sup>1</sup>
JADAV JITENDRASINH KARANSINH & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
FOR ADMISSION IA No. 88321/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 88320/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 88319/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date: 21-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R
-
Delay condoned.
-
Issue notice.
In addition to the usual mode, liberty is granted to the 3. petitioner(s) to serve notice through the Standing Counsel for the respondent $(s)$ .
In the meantime, there shall be stay of the consequential $4.$ effect of the impugned order.
Tag with SLP(C) No. 15115/2023.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) DEPUTY REGISTRAR
(ANJU KAPOOR) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Respondent $(s)$