Supreme Court permits withdrawal of SLP in property dispute: S.M. Pasha vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2023. Citation: 2023 INSC 1312. Judges: M. R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J., and Sanjay Karol, J. Can a court allow the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) when the circumstances surrounding the case have changed significantly? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute in Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around whether certain tenants could withdraw their SLP after the termination of a development agreement that was central to their initial grievance. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from a property dispute in Maharashtra, where several tenants had filed appeals against orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The primary contention of the tenants was related to a development agreement involving their properties. During the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, a significant development occurred: the initial development agreement was terminated, and a new agreement with a different developer was entered into. This change in circumstances led the petitioners to seek withdrawal of their Special Leave Petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions filed by tenants of a property, challenging the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The primary issue was related to a development agreement that was in place. During the proceedings, the initial development agreement was terminated, and a new agreement was made with another developer. This change led the petitioners to seek withdrawal of their SLP. The respondent No. 5, whose development agreement was terminated, also filed an IA challenging the termination and initiated perjury proceedings.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of withdrawing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and does not delve into specific statutory provisions. The core of the matter revolves around the inherent power of the Supreme Court to manage its proceedings and allow withdrawal of cases when circumstances warrant it. The Court’s decision is based on the changed circumstances and the submissions made by the parties, rather than on a specific provision of law.

Arguments

Petitioners (in SLP(C) No. 4428/2016):

• The petitioners, except petitioner No. 4, sought permission to withdraw their SLP due to subsequent developments.
• The primary reason for withdrawal was the termination of the development agreement with respondent No. 5.
• A new development agreement had been entered into with another developer, rendering the original cause of action obsolete.

Petitioners (in SLP(C) No…CC No. 4922/2016):

• The petitioners did not object to the withdrawal of the other SLP.
• They requested that the new development agreement be disclosed to them.
• They sought liberty to challenge the new development agreement if its terms were not agreeable to them.

Respondent No. 5:

• Opposed the withdrawal of the SLPs.
• Had filed an IA challenging the termination of their development agreement.
• Had also initiated perjury proceedings.
• Requested that if the court did not entertain their challenge in the current proceedings, they should be allowed to challenge the termination and the new agreement in a separate forum.

Other Respondents:

• Other respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and MHADA, did not raise specific arguments against the withdrawal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the implicit issues addressed were:

1. Whether the petitioners in SLP(C) No. 4428/2016 could be permitted to withdraw their SLP unconditionally.
2. Whether the petitioners in SLP(C) No…CC No. 4922/2016 were entitled to a copy of the new development agreement.
3. Whether respondent No. 5 could be granted liberty to challenge the termination of their development agreement and the new agreement in a separate forum.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its judgment. The decision was primarily based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions of the parties.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any authorities in this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the subsequent developments in the case, particularly the termination of the original development agreement and the execution of a new one. The Court aimed to ensure that all parties had the opportunity to address their grievances in an appropriate forum. The Court considered the submissions of all parties and sought to balance their interests while disposing of the petitions.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. It focused on the changed circumstances and the need to provide all parties with an opportunity to litigate their grievances in the appropriate forum.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The termination of the original development agreement.
• The execution of a new development agreement.
• The submissions of the parties seeking withdrawal of the SLP.
• The need to provide all parties with an opportunity to challenge the new developments in an appropriate forum.

The Supreme Court did not have any majority or minority opinions in this case.

The court’s decision is a procedural one, allowing parties to pursue their grievances in light of new developments. It does not set any new legal principles but rather applies existing procedural norms to the specific facts of the case. The potential implications for future cases are that courts should be receptive to changes in circumstances and allow parties to withdraw cases when the original cause of action no longer exists.

“…we permit the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4428/2016 to withdraw the SLP unconditionally.”

“The copy of the fresh development agreement needs be furnished to the respective tenants by the present management.”

“It will also be open for respondent No. 5 whose development agreement has been terminated by the present management/MHADA to challenge the termination of the development agreement…”

Key Takeaways

• Parties can withdraw Special Leave Petitions if circumstances change significantly during the pendency of the case.
• Courts may direct disclosure of relevant documents to ensure transparency and fairness.
• Parties are entitled to challenge new developments in an appropriate forum.
• The decision highlights the importance of procedural flexibility in litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The present management was directed to furnish a copy of the fresh development agreement to the respective tenants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a Special Leave Petition can be withdrawn unconditionally when the circumstances that led to its filing have changed significantly. This decision does not alter any previous position of law but reinforces the court’s power to manage its proceedings in light of new developments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of a Special Leave Petition due to significant changes in the factual scenario, specifically the termination of the original development agreement and the execution of a new one. The Court also directed the disclosure of the new agreement and granted liberty to all parties to challenge the new developments in an appropriate forum. This decision highlights the court’s willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and ensure fairness in the litigation process.