Supreme Court: Clarifying the legal position on expiry of stay, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph, JJ said

“Whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months, and unless extension is granted for good reason, within the next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same.”

The order of the Court came after the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, stated in an order that the Complainant should move an application before the High Court to resume the trial. The order of the Magistrate further read that the lower Court cannot pass any order which has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay. The Supreme Court had, in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310, held,

“35. … …. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.”

The Court, hence, reminded the Magistrates all over the country that in our pyramidical structure under the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is at the Apex, and the High Courts, though not subordinate administratively, are certainly subordinate judicially.

“This kind of orders fly in the face of para 35 of our judgment. We expect that the Magistrates all over the country will follow our order in letter and spirit.”

Stating that the mandate of speedy justice applies to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be, the Court, hence, directed:

The directions issued by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 are:

  • In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order.
  • The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized.
  • The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.

[Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1577 OF 2020, order dated 15.10.2020]


Read detailed report on the 2018 verdict in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation2018 SCC OnLine SC 310,  here.

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court

 

3 comments

  • but it is still being violated blatantly by the Magistrates.
    There is blatant corruption in the Judiciary nowadays.
    Since 12.07.2023 I have tried to drill this same judgment into the Head of the Magistrate, but he goes off on a tangent.
    the accused have after bribing the judge of the High Court and forging documents and based on an infructuous Application which was filed by me granted interim relief to the accused on 11.01.2023 based on the fraud committed by crooked/fraudster Sr. counsels Like Mr. Abad Ponda.

    It was only when I placed all three applications/judgments of the ASIAN REROAD SURFACING and orders and told him he couldn’t compare oranges with apples he has now passed an order issuing a summons.
    can’t even give the magistrate the benefit of the doubt.

  • I am not convinced about this judgment as even after producing this citation trial is not getting conducted so what’s the point in producing this citation ?

    The trial judge asking for the order of stay vacating from the high court inspite of submitting this order so it’s not a concluding judgment from my point of view.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.