Supreme Court Stay on High Court Order in FAO Hearing Urgency The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order, except for specific elections, directing the High Court to expedite the FAO hearing and conclude the matter ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court Stay on High Court Order in FAO Hearing Urgency
The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order, except for specific elections, directing the High Court to expedite the FAO hearing and conclude the matter by 23.09.2020. The DDCA's Apex Council resolution to remove counsel representing them was seen as interference, challenging the Supreme Court's order. The appellant, with new counsel, sought to be heard, emphasizing the urgency. The court focused on deciding the FAO by 22.9.2020, with the order reserved for further consideration, stressing the need for prompt action.
Issues Involved: 1. Stay of the High Court order dated 17.06.2020, except for certain elections. 2. Removal of counsel representing DDCA. 3. Resolution passed by DDCA's Apex Council interfering with the proceedings. 4. Direction from the Supreme Court to decide the FAO by 22.9.2020.
Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court order dated 17.06.2020, except for specific elections. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the FAO and decide the matter finally. The elections were required to continue, and the High Court was instructed to conclude the matter by 23.09.2020. The importance of the case was emphasized, urging the High Court to prioritize the hearing.
2. A resolution passed by DDCA's Apex Council on 13.09.2020 sought to remove the set of counsel who had represented DDCA before the Supreme Court. This move was considered an interference in the proceedings, especially in light of the Supreme Court's order to expedite the FAO hearing. The appellant had been heard on previous dates, with the respondents having concluded their arguments. The appellant was in the process of concluding its rejoinder arguments, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
3. The appellant, represented by the Additional Solicitor General with a new set of counsel, requested to be heard as the previous counsel were allegedly unauthorized to appear. The Apex Council's resolution was viewed as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's order and was deemed inappropriate at that stage of the proceedings. The court refrained from passing any immediate orders regarding this matter, maintaining focus on deciding the FAO by the specified date.
4. The primary focus remained on deciding the FAO by 22.9.2020, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directive. The arguments were heard, and the order was reserved for further consideration. The court emphasized the urgency of the situation by ordering the immediate upload of the order on the website and forwarding copies to the counsels via email for prompt dissemination and action.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
