LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should recall its order directing a party to deposit an amount as per a High Court order in an arbitration matter.
CASE TYPE: Arbitration
Case Name: Dharmesh S. Jain & another vs. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund
[Judgment Date]: 25 January 2022
Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: M.R. Shah J. and Sanjiv Khanna J.
Can an order of the Supreme Court be recalled if the party was represented by a lawyer? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case where a party sought to recall an order directing them to deposit a certain amount. The court ultimately held that the order should not be recalled. This case examines the circumstances under which the Supreme Court will reconsider its own orders, especially when there has been an opportunity for the parties to be heard.
The Supreme Court bench was composed of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The dispute arose from an arbitration matter where the High Court of Judicature at Bombay had ordered the applicants, Dharmesh S. Jain and another, to deposit 50% of the awarded sum within twelve weeks from 08 August 2019. The applicants sought and received extensions of time to make the deposit but failed to do so. They then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was initially allowed ex-parte, granting them further time to comply with the High Court order.
The respondent, Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund, filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking to recall the Supreme Court’s order that had extended the time for deposit. The respondent argued that the applicants were merely attempting to delay the execution of the arbitral award. The Supreme Court then passed an order on 28 October 2021 directing the applicants to deposit the amount as per the High Court order, warning of serious consequences for non-compliance.
The applicants then filed the present miscellaneous application seeking to recall the order dated 28 October 2021.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 08 August 2019 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay orders applicants to deposit 50% of the awarded sum within twelve weeks. |
| Various Dates | Applicants receive extensions of time to deposit the amount from the High Court. |
| 20 August 2021 | Applicants file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court with delay. |
| 17 September 2021 | Supreme Court condones delay and grants eight weeks’ time to comply with the High Court order ex-parte. |
| 28 October 2021 | Supreme Court directs applicants to deposit the amount as per the High Court order, warning of serious consequences for non-compliance. |
| 18 November 2021 | Contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent against the applicants. |
| 10 December 2021 | Notice issued in the contempt proceedings. |
| 17 January 2022 | Applicants file a miscellaneous application to recall the order dated 28 October 2021. |
| 25 January 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the application to recall the order. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay had initially ordered the applicants to deposit 50% of the awarded sum. The applicants repeatedly sought extensions of time but did not comply with the order. The applicants then approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court initially condoned the delay and granted further time to comply with the High Court order. The respondent then filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking to recall the order granting further time. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, directed the applicants to deposit the amount as per the High Court order. The applicants then filed the present application seeking to recall the order dated 28 October 2021.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of seeking recall of an order passed by the Supreme Court. There was no specific statute or provision of law discussed in the judgment.
Arguments
The applicants, represented by Shri Shyam Divan, made the following submissions:
- The Miscellaneous Application No. 1668/2021 was not maintainable as it was filed in a disposed-of matter.
- No notice was issued to the applicants in M.A. No. 1668/2021, and they did not file a reply.
- The Supreme Court could not have issued the direction to deposit the amount in a special leave petition. The consequence of not depositing the amount would only mean that there was no stay of the arbitral award and the execution proceedings would proceed.
The respondent, represented by Shri Jayant Bhushan, argued that the applicants were deliberately delaying the matter and had no intention of complying with the High Court order. They contended that the applicants had sought multiple extensions of time but had not deposited the amount. The respondent also pointed out that the applicants had filed the application to recall the order only after contempt proceedings had been initiated against them.
| Applicants’ Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| M.A. No. 1668/2021 was not maintainable. | Applicants were deliberately delaying the matter. |
| No notice was issued to the applicants in M.A. No. 1668/2021. | Applicants had no intention of complying with the High Court order. |
| The Supreme Court could not have issued the direction to deposit the amount in a special leave petition. | Applicants sought multiple extensions but did not deposit the amount. |
| The consequence of not depositing the amount would only mean that there was no stay of the arbitral award and the execution proceedings would proceed. | Applicants filed the application to recall the order only after contempt proceedings were initiated. |
Innovativeness of the argument: The applicants’ argument that the Supreme Court could not have issued the direction to deposit the amount in a special leave petition was innovative, as it challenged the scope of the court’s powers in such matters. However, the court did not accept this argument.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in M.A. No. 1668/2021 should be recalled.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in M.A. No. 1668/2021 should be recalled. | No | The Court held that the order was passed after hearing the counsel for the applicants and considering all the facts and circumstances. The application to recall was an afterthought to avoid contempt proceedings. |
Authorities
No authorities were cited by the court in this judgment.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| None | None | None |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| M.A. No. 1668/2021 was not maintainable. | The Court held that this argument was not raised when the order was passed on 28.10.2021, and the applicants’ lawyer was present. Therefore, the applicants could not raise this argument now. |
| No notice was issued to the applicants in M.A. No. 1668/2021. | The Court noted that a copy of M.A. No. 1668/2021 was served on the applicants’ counsel, who appeared and was heard. Therefore, the Court rejected this argument. |
| The Supreme Court could not have issued the direction to deposit the amount in a special leave petition. | The Court stated that the order was passed after considering the conduct of the applicants and their attempts to delay the proceedings. The Court found no reason to recall the order. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the conduct of the applicants, who had repeatedly sought extensions of time to deposit the amount as ordered by the High Court but had failed to do so. The Court also noted that the application to recall the order was filed only after contempt proceedings had been initiated, suggesting that it was an attempt to avoid the consequences of non-compliance.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Applicants’ Conduct | 50% |
| Delaying Tactics | 30% |
| Contempt Proceedings | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the applicants’ repeated failure to comply with the High Court’s order and their subsequent attempt to avoid the consequences through the recall application. While legal principles were considered, the factual matrix played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ arguments, stating, “At that time, neither any request was made to adjourn the matter so as to enable the applicants to file reply nor any objection was raised with respect to non-maintainability of M.A. No. 1668/2021.” The Court also observed, “the present application is nothing but an afterthought and only with a view to get out the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent.” Further, the Court noted, “the applicants though sufficient indulgence have been shown by way of extension of time by the High Court, the amount has not been deposited.”
There was no majority or minority opinion in this case.
The decision reinforces the importance of complying with court orders and highlights that the Supreme Court will not easily recall its orders, especially when the party seeking the recall had an opportunity to be heard and is attempting to avoid the consequences of their non-compliance.
Key Takeaways
- Parties must raise objections to the maintainability of a petition at the earliest opportunity.
- The Supreme Court will not easily recall its orders, especially if the party seeking the recall had an opportunity to be heard.
- Attempts to delay compliance with court orders can lead to adverse consequences, such as contempt proceedings.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, other than dismissing the application to recall the order.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not recall its order if the party seeking the recall was heard and is attempting to avoid the consequences of non-compliance. This case reinforces the principle that parties must raise objections to the maintainability of a petition at the earliest opportunity and that the court will not easily recall its orders.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the application to recall its earlier order, emphasizing that the applicants were attempting to avoid the consequences of their non-compliance with the High Court’s order. The Court held that the applicants had been heard and that their application was an afterthought to avoid contempt proceedings. This judgment underscores the importance of complying with court orders and the limited circumstances under which the Supreme Court will reconsider its own orders.