Automatic Vacation Of Stay After 6 Months Creating Problems, Requires Serious Reconsideration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that its order in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. VS. Central Bureau of Investigation directing automatic vacation of stay granted by any court including High Courts in civil or criminal proceedings after 6 months ‘requires serious consideration’ as it is creating problems.

In March 2018, the Supreme Court had directed that where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in October 2020.

Today, Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, AOR, submitted before a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Prakash Kumar Mishra that in a particular case, after the High Court had admitted a matter and stayed execution proceedings of the court below, due to automatic vacation of stay, the lower court proceeded with auctioning of the property of the judgement debtor. The Apex Court in this case, granted relief to the appellant by ordering status quo.

In the course of today's hearing Justice Gavai told Attorney General R. Venkataramani ‘it requires consideration, because this is creating a lot of problems.’ The AG agreed with Court and said ‘I will look into it. As far as criminal matters are concerned, we need to collect data on how it really works.’

‘Even in civil matters’ Justice Gavai remarked.

In another connected matter, the counsel also brought up an appeal where the High Court had stayed proceedings in a criminal matter and subsequently, the trial court had issued a warrant against the appellant in light of the automatic stay vacation. Interim protection was granted to the appellant in this matter as well.

“This is happening everywhere, some (lower courts) write to the High Court seeking directions, some pass recall orders on their own without hearing the other side. “ Justice Mishra remarked.

In August 2019, the Supreme Court had clarified that the six months cap on interim stay orders will not be application to Supreme Court orders. If the interim order granted by the Supreme Court is not vacated and continues beyond a period of 6 months by reason of pendency of the appeal, it cannot be said that the interim order would automatically stand vacated, the Court had said. 

AOR Sanpreet Singh Ajmani appeared for the applicant seeking clarification in the matter. 

Case Title: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director V. Central Bureau of Investigation Director and connected matters