Explore the in-depth legal analysis provided by the court in a recent decision regarding the recall of an order. The court’s thorough examination of the circumstances and parties’ arguments offers valuable insights into the workings of the legal system. Stay tuned to unravel the complexities of the case and the court’s reasoning behind upholding its previous order.
Facts
- Copy of M.A. No. 1668/2021 served to counsel
- Counsel appeared and presented arguments on behalf of the applicants
- Court passed order on 28.10.2021 after hearing arguments
- Applicants cannot now raise grievance on non-maintainability or lack of notice
- No request was made for adjournment or objection raised during the hearing
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- Shri Shyam Divan argued that MA No. 1668/2021 was not maintainable as it was filed in a disposed of matter.
- No notice was issued to the applicants in MA No. 1668/2021 and no reply was filed on their behalf.
- Shri Shyam Divan contended that the direction to deposit the amount as per the High Court’s order in the petitioners’ special leave petition was unwarranted.
- The consequences of non-compliance would be no stay of the arbitral award and further execution proceedings.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The present application for recall of the order dated 28.10.2021 was filed after a significant delay of two and a half months, indicating it as an afterthought to evade contempt proceedings.
- The order dated 28.10.2021 was passed considering the applicant’s history of not complying with the High Court’s orders and attempts to prolong the execution process.
- The applicant had been granted multiple extensions of time to deposit the awarded sum but failed to do so, leading to the eventual order dated 28.10.2021.
- The order dated 28.10.2021 was intended to prevent further delays in the execution of the High Court’s order, based on the respondent’s concerns regarding the applicant’s lack of intention to comply.
- The applicant’s conduct post the extension granted on 17.09.2021, further reinforced the respondent’s reservations about the applicant’s intentions.
- The order dated 28.10.2021 was passed after due consideration of the circumstances and hearing both parties, making it unnecessary to recall.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- No case made out to recall order dated 28.10.2021 in M.A. No 1668/2021
- Present application dismissed for the stated reasons
- Application deemed an afterthought to avoid contempt proceedings
- Order dated 28.10.2021 upheld
Case Title: DHARMESH S. JAIN Vs. URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE REAL ESTATE FUND (2022 INSC 100)
Case Number: MA-000061 / 2022
