Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs. Pradeep Kumar Nahata
AI Summary
In a significant procedural move, the Supreme Court has condoned the delay and allowed an interim stay on a Delhi High Court order challenged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Court issued notice to the respondent, signaling the commencement of a deeper legal scrutiny into the High Court's judgment. This order provides temporary relief to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, pending the final adjudication of the Special Leave Petition.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, along with another entity, filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) in the Supreme Court challenging a final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi on February 2, 2023, in WPC No. 6420/2013. The petitioners sought condonation of delay in refiling the SLP and exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
Timeline of Events
Original Writ Petition (WPC No. 6420/2013) filed in High Court of Delhi.
Impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 6420/2013.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.13467/2023 filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. in the Supreme Court, with delays in filing/refiling.
Supreme Court heard the matter, condoned delay, allowed exemption, issued notice, and granted interim stay.
Key Factual Findings
There was a delay in the filing/refiling of the Special Leave Petition.
Source: Current Court Finding
The petitioners required exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
Source: Current Court Finding
An impugned final judgment and order dated 02-02-2023 in WPC No. 6420/2013 was passed by the High Court of Delhi.
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Primary Legal Issues
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners (Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.) likely presented arguments justifying the delay in filing/refiling the Special Leave Petition, seeking condonation. They also argued for an exemption from the requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned High Court judgment. Crucially, they contended that a strong prima facie case exists against the Delhi High Court's order, warranting an interim stay to prevent prejudice during the pendency of the SLP.
Respondent's Arguments
No arguments from the respondent side were presented or recorded in this order, as notice was only issued, indicating they had not yet formally appeared or submitted their reply.
Court's Reasoning
The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. It concluded that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing/refiling and to allow the exemption applications. Implicitly, the Court found a prima facie case for interference with the High Court's order and a balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners, leading to the decision to issue notice and grant an interim stay.
- Emphasis on Procedural Fairness
- Prudential Approach to Interim Relief
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Delay condoned.
- 2.Exemption Applications are allowed.
- 3.Issue notice.
- 4.Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
- 5.In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This order is procedural in nature, dealing with admission, condonation of delay, exemption, and interim stay. It does not lay down a new legal principle or finally decide the merits of the 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.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NOS.39+61+62
COURT NO.8
SECTION XIV
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.13467/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-02-2023 in WPC No. 6420/2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DILIP KUMAR NAHATA
$Respondent(s)$
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.100596/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.100595/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP)
WITH
Diary No(s). $31538/2023$ (XIV) (IA No.156050/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{A}$ No.156045/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 31554/2023 (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.158873/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and IA No.158874/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 31583/2023 (IA No.159546/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP and IA No.159543/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 18-08-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
$CORAM$ :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
For Petitioner(s)
| Signature Not Verified |
|---|
| Digitally signed by<br>VISHAL ANAND |
| Date: 2023-08.18 |
| 19:27:12 IS<br>Reason: |
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv. Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Majumdar, Adv. Ms. Rajeeta Raj, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Exemption Applications are allowed.
4. Issue notice.
5. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
6. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the impugned order passed by the High Court of Delhi.
(VISHAL ANAND) (BEENA JOLLY) ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)