SC Rules Against Automatic Vacation of Interim Orders of Stay After Six Months

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Apr 29, 2024

SC Rules Against Automatic Vacation of Interim Orders of Stay After Six Months

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the SC in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP ^[1] has held that there cannot be automatic vacation of interim orders of stay of proceedings only by reason of lapse of time. In doing so, the SC has overruled its earlier ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI^[2] wherein it had held that interim orders passed by HCs for stay on trials in civil and criminal matters would expire automatically after six months, unless the same were expressly extended by the HC. The SC further held that constitutional Courts should, in the ordinary course, refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending before any other Court.

[1] High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP, (Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023, decided on February 29, 2024)

[2] Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299

DISCLAIMER

These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.