Appeal dismissed due to delay in filing against order for additional licenses. Upheld decision to grant licenses.

The appeal was filed against the order dismissing the Notice of Motion by the appellants regarding additional licenses and REP licenses for a diamond business firm. Mr. Justice Jahagirdar's decision directing the Union of India to grant the licenses was upheld, and the Union of India's appeal was dismissed due to a delay in filing. Attempts to challenge the decision and seek modification were rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the finality and stability of legal judgments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order dismissing the Notice of Motion.
2. Grant of additional licenses and endorsement on REP licenses.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Challenge to the order of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar.
5. Validity of the order of the Supreme Court.
6. Request for modification of the order of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order dismissing the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellants. The respondent No. 1, a firm engaged in diamond business, was granted an Export House Certificate but faced issues with additional licenses and REP licenses. The petitioner approached the Court through writ petitions, and Mr. Justice Jahagirdar allowed the petition, directing the Union of India to grant additional licenses and endorse REP licenses. The Union of India's appeal was dismissed due to a delay in filing, leading to further legal actions.

2. The Union of India sought clarification and direction to issue additional licenses and endorse REP licenses, citing a Supreme Court case. The motion was dismissed regarding the clarification but time was extended for implementing Mr. Justice Jahagirdar's order. The Union of India argued that the order was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision, but the Court held that the order was final and not subject to modification based on subsequent conflicting decisions.

3. The condonation of delay in filing the appeal was a crucial issue. The Division Bench declined to condone the delay, leading to the finality of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar's decision. The Union of India's attempt to challenge the order through a Special Leave Petition was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court, which was considered final and not open for modification by the High Court.

4. The challenge to the order of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar was based on the argument that subsequent Supreme Court decisions conflicted with his judgment. However, the Court held that finality should be respected, and reopening decisions based on later conflicting judgments would undermine the legal system's stability and principles.

5. The validity of the Supreme Court's order was questioned, with the Union of India claiming that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition without detailed reasons should not bind the High Court. However, the Court emphasized the need to respect the Supreme Court's decisions, even if summarily made, and not disturb the order based on such grounds.

6. The request for modification of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar's order was denied, emphasizing the importance of upholding final decisions and not reopening matters based on subsequent developments. The Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the integrity and stability of legal judgments.

---