M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 16-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 421 
M/S. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
v. 
MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.5499 of 2013) 
JULY 16, 2013 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI AND ANIL R. DAVE, J.) 
A 
B 
Practice and Procedure - Extension of interim relief 
beyond the date of final disposal of the case - Propriety <Jf -
Held: Though continuation of interim relief beyond the date 
C 
of disposal is not permissible - But where the matter is hea'i'd 
on merits, and withdrawal of the case is permitted on the facts 
of the case, Court is at liberty to extend the interim relief for a 
limited period after recording reasons for the same. 
The High Court after hearing the matter on merits 
permitted the respondents (appellants in th.e High Court) 
D 
to withdraw the matter so as to avail alternative remedy. 
The High Court, however, observed that the impugned 
order had prima facie finding and that the order of 
E 
withdrawal would not prevent the parties from making 
legal submissions before the appropriate forum. The 
High Court also extended the interim relief granted to the 
respondent beyond the date of the withdrawal order. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Appellant contended that while permitting withdrawal 
of the appeal, such observations could not have been 
made by the High Court; and that upon final disposal of 
the case, the High Court become functus officio and 
hence could n~t have extended the inerim relief beyond 
G 
the date of judgment. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
421 
H 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The High Court did not ask the authority, 
which was to be approached by the appellants, that the 
observations made by the Single Judge should be 
ignored. The order of the Single Judge was to be 
challenged by the appellants before another forum and 
B therefore, the Division Bench did not state anything on 
the merits of the order passed by the Single Judge. Thus, 
the Division Bench had made innocuous observations 
which cannot be said to be unjust or improper. [Para 10) 
[425-E-F] 
c 
2. If a petition is not maintainable and is ultimately 
withdrawn, the court should not continue interim relief for 
a period beyond withdrawal of the writ petition. However, 
where the matter is heard on merits and after considering 
the facts of the case, the court permits withdrawal of the 
D case, the court is at liberty to extend the interim relief or 
can grant interim relief for a limited period after recording 
reasons for the same. In view of the facts of the case, the 
High Court was not in error while extending the interim 
relief for some time while permitting withdrawal of the 
E appeal, as the High Court has also recorded the reasons 
for which the interim relief was extended beyond 
withdrawal of the appeal and especially when the matter 
was heard on merits by the High Court and only to 
facilitate the appellants, the High Court had permitted 
F withdrawal of appeal. [Para 17, 18 and 19) [428-B-E] 
The State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta A.LR. (39) 
1952 S.C.12 - followed. 
Ajay Mohan and Ors. vs. H.N. Rai and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 
G 507: 2007(13) SCR 298; Padam Sen and Anr. vs. The State 
of Uttar Pradesh1961(1) S.C.R. 884 - relied on. 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
2007 (13) SCR 298 
1961(1) S.C.R. 884 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 13 
Para15 
MIS. HOTEL QUEEN ROAD PVT. LTD. & ORS. v. 
423 
MR. RAM PARSHOTAM MITIAL & ORS. 
A.LR. (39) 1952 S.C.12 followed 
Para16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
5499 of 2013. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2010 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 349 of 2009. 
B 
WITH 
SLP (C) No. 22887 of 2013. 
Jayant Bhushan, Mohit Chauhary, Jayant K. Mehta, R.K. 
Srivastava, Pragya Singh, Harsh Sharma, Puja Sharma for the 
C 
Appellants. 
Aman Lekhi, Atul Sharma, Nitesh Jain, A.D.N. Rao, Ajay 
Sharma, Abhishek Aggarwal, Respondent-In-Person for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Though the present litigation has a chequered history, 
E 
we do not propose to go into the details of the litigation for the 
reason that by virtue of the impugned order dated 20th April, 
201 O passed in FAO (OS) 349 of 2009 by the High Court of 
Delhi, the appellants i.e. the present respondents had been 
permitted to withdraw the said appeal. 
F 
3. It appears that the appeal was substantially heard by the 
High Court but as the High Court was not persuaded to grant 
any rel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.