Supreme Court Stay Order Applicable to All High Courts; Proceedings Deferred Pending Clarification The High Court held that the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.8.2008, staying proceedings in pending writ petitions before different High Courts, ...
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 Order Applicable to All High Courts; Proceedings Deferred Pending Clarification
The High Court held that the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.8.2008, staying proceedings in pending writ petitions before different High Courts, applies not only to pending matters but also to subsequent writ petitions filed in any High Court. Consequently, the High Court refused to pass any orders until the Supreme Court clarifies its directive and deferred the present writ petition until the controversy is resolved by the Supreme Court. The respondents were given four weeks to file a counter affidavit, and the petitioner was allowed two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit before further proceedings.
Issues: Constitutional validity of provisions of Finance Act, 2007; Interpretation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.8.2008.
In the instant writ petition, the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Finance Act, 2007 was challenged. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court only covers pending petitions and not matters filed in this Court or other High Courts. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel contended that even if a writ petition is filed, this Court cannot adjudicate the matter as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings. The High Court analyzed the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.8.2008, which directed that all proceedings in pending writ petitions before different High Courts shall remain stayed. The High Court interpreted that the order's letter and spirit imply that no High Court should pass any order until the controversy is resolved by the Supreme Court. Despite the Bombay High Court's reference to the Supreme Court's order, it did not consider the part where proceedings were stayed. The High Court held that the direction of the Supreme Court is binding, covering not only pending matters but also subsequent writ petitions filed in any High Court. Consequently, the High Court refused to pass any order until the Supreme Court clarifies its directive and deferred the present writ petition until the controversy is resolved by the Supreme Court.
The High Court granted four weeks for the respondents' counsel to file a counter affidavit and allowed two weeks for the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The case was listed for further proceedings after the affidavits were filed.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
