Supreme Court Refuses To Apply Automatic Stay Vacation Direction In 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment To Interim Stay In Writ Proceedings

The Supreme Court refused to apply the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 to an order passed by High Court in writ proceedings.

In this case, a division bench of a High Court stayed operation of the order passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition.  By filing a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the writ petitioner sought clarification that the order passed in the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case.

In the Asian Resurfacing judgment, the Supreme Court had directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended."In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalised. The trial court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.", it was held.

The bench in the present case noted that the Asian Resurfacing case revolved around the questions arising out of the pendency of civil and criminal cases, i.e., of trial being halted and the tendency towards procrastination on the strength of the orders of stay granted. The result was that cases were not being taken to their logical conclusion with the speed with which they should have been done, the court said.

While disposing of the MA filed by the writ petitioner, the court observed:

"We are afraid that the attempt of the applicant to draw inspiration from the above directions as referred to above cannot succeed in view that this Court cannot be understood as having intended to apply the principle to the fact situation which is presented in this case. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application for clarification is disposed of by clarifying that the order of stay granted by the Division Bench in the High Court cannot be treated as having no force. However, we leave it open to the applicant to seek early disposal of the case."

The Supreme Court had earlier held that the 6 months cap on interim stay orders is not applicable to orders passed by it.

Case details

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440 | MA 706 OF 2022 | 25 April 2022

Coram: Justice KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

Counsel : Adv Sakshi Kakkar for the applicant,  ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee for respondent

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - Whether the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 applicable to an interim order of stay passed by High Court in writ proceedings (writ appeal) - The order of stay granted by the Division Bench in the High Court cannot be treated as having no force - This Court cannot be understood as having intended to apply the principle to the fact situation which is presented in this case.