Supreme Court: There Can Be Interference in the Interim Order If It Impinges Public Interest

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

A division bench of the SC heard Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited & Ors. on the 24th of June.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The case relates to a tender contract awarded to the Appellant. In the intra-court appeal, the High Court passed an interim order. By the said interim order, the Court ordered that there cannot be signing of a contract. The High Court passed the interim order in an intra-court appeal. The filing of appeal was against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the Respondent. In the writ, the petitioners raised queries about the certain clause of the bid. The said clause required extensive experience to bid. The Appellant challenged the interim order passed by the High Court.

Arguments

The Appellant argued that it for them to decide the eligibility criteria. This is on the basis that they are the best judge of the requirements. A challenge thus cannot exist on conditions imposed in a tender. Moreover, if the tenderers are permitted to manage the warehouse, the Appellant would suffer a huge financial loss. The Respondent also argued that the Court cannot interfere in the interim order. 

Court’s View

The Court generally does not interfere with interim orders under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, in this case, the High Court ordered a stay without recording any reason. This has further affected the revenue of the State. In this regard, the public interest cannot be allowed to be suffered. The Court relied on Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Mfg. Assn. (2005) 12 SCC 454. In this case, the Apex Court interfered with an interim relief ‘having regard to singular lack of any acceptable reason’. 

The Court also raised questions of contractual matters. The Court made observations in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 492. There was this observation that the Court could entertain petitions challenging interim orders if there is ‘overwhelming public interest’ involved.

The Court also has to account for the various other consequences ensuing from the challenge of such interim orders. Also, other considerations include the discharge of financial arrangements, an increase in cost from delay, or other damages. 

Additionally, the restraining successful bidders from executing the contract is not in the public interest. Especially when the tender is for storage of food articles in the warehouse.

Court’s Decision

The interim order impinges upon the public interest and is passed without recording of reasons. Hence, the interim order was set aside allowing the appeal. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -