Improper For Later Bench To Sit In Appeal Over Interim Order Passed By Earlier Bench : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently discouraged the practice of a later bench of the High Court sitting in appeal over an interim order passed by an earlier bench. It also stated that the High Court should not pass a blanket 'no-coercive steps' order without assigning reasons.In this case, the petitioner had sought an interim stay on an investigation before the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition. The earlier bench, which heard the matter, refused to grant the relief. It passed an interim comprehensive order directing the petitioner to join the investigation and also provide all necessary information to the investigating officer. The bench also said that during that period of time, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner, and in case any incriminating material is found against the petitioner, the police officer will issue a suitable notice under Section 41A CrPC to appear before them instead of arresting.Due to the roster change, the matter went to a different bench, which passed an interim order dated November 24 granting interim relief. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe stated that no reason was recorded in the said order as to why the investigation was stayed. Citing Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Others(2021), the bench observed that the High Court ought to have been more mindful while granting a blanket stay of the investigation. In Niharika, the Court frowned upon the tendency of the Court to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, nonspeaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall be adopted".It also remarked that it was improper that the latter bench did not care to see that the earlier bench had clearly indicated that the matter needed to be heard at the admission stage."The order passed by the High Court clearly falls short of those standards. That apart, the earlier Bench had passed a detailed interim order and also indicated that the writ petitions require to be heard at the admission stage finally. It was not proper for the later Bench to practically sit in appeal over that earlier interim order and baldly admit the writ petitions, without even indicating the next date of hearing."Considering this, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of an application to reopen the issue.Case Details: PUNEET BHASIN v. YES BANK LIMITED & ANR.|Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 20136/2025Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1249Click Here To Read OrderAppearances: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Ms. Sanjivani Pattjoshi, Adv. Mr. Karan Rajput, Adv. Ms. Prangana Barua, Adv. Mr. Shivam Bhagwati, Adv. Mr. Pranav Saigal, Adv. Mr. Mufaddal Paperwala, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AO

Improper For Later Bench To Sit In Appeal Over Interim Order Passed By Earlier Bench : Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags