Automatic Stay Vacation - Reference Against 'Asian Resurfacing' : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court is hearing today the reference against the 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director V. Central Bureau of Investigation as per which interim orders of stay granted by High Courts and other courts in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after a period of six months unless the orders are specifically extended.The...
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court is hearing today the reference against the 2018 judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Director V. Central Bureau of Investigation as per which interim orders of stay granted by High Courts and other courts in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after a period of six months unless the orders are specifically extended.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra (High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. Union of India).
It was on December 1 that a three-judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra referred Asian Resurfacing to a 5-judge bench, after expressing reservations about the dictum regarding automatic stay vacation. Incidentally, on the same day, another bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal,also expressed reservations about the judgment.
The reference arouse out of an appeal filed by the High Court Bar Association Allahabad based on a Certificate of Appeal granted by the Allahabad High Court which raised a set of doubts regarding the Asian Resurfacing judgment. In its judgment delivered on November 3, a 3-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court framed ten questions for the deliberation of the Supreme Court in relation to the dictum of automatic vacation of stay.
Follow this page for live-updates from the hearing :
Judgment reserved.
The court has risen.
Pai: The intent is ofcourse good- it is to prevent delay in trials and promote speedy trials. But there is no specific...as Mr Dwivedi argued.
Sr Adv Amit Pai: The genesis of my matter is a classic example of problems of Asian Resurfacing. This is a criminal trial. These are advocates appearing for the accused who have been roped in as conspirators with accused.
Pai: I secured a stay in HC in 2014. Matter doesn't come up. The stay now stands vacated by order impugned before your lordships only on the ground of Asia Resurfacing.
Pai: Judicial discretion is the essence of the adjudicatory process. Asian Resurfacing has completely taken away that discretion that HC has exercised in respect of giving interim order.
Sr Adv Vijay Hansaria: I appear for Guwahati HC Bar Association. We are supporting both Mr Dwivedi and SG. Wherever limitation is provided it is on the litigant and not upon the court.
SG: For example in IBC, Arbitration Act etc the right to file appeal goes after a time frame. Because of the overall scheme of the act, the intent of legislation etc. Because there is one focused area that court examines. This is too wide an area- it can be civil, criminal, appeal, 482...
SG: After 6 months, the case will not become weak. It would remain strong unless heard. Balance of convenience will not tilt just because 6 months passed. Injury also...
SG: Whenever a timeframe is stipulated, it's always for the competent legislature to do.
SG: There is a CB judgement - Raza Bulland Sugar Company v Municipal Board of Rampur. The judgement says nothing can be done behind the back of or in absence of the litigant.
SG: Indore Development Authority judgment has recognised the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" - the act of the court can prejudice noone.
SG: The 6 months period- the judgement takes away the discretion of the HC to say that the stay would go till a particular period which is beyond the reach of application.