Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Lazarus vs Andhra Ev Angelical Lutheran Church ... on 29 March, 2022
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Bela M. Trivedi
SLP(C) D.8796/2022
1
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.8796/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-02-2022
in CC No.1012/2021 17-02-2022 in CC No.995/2021 passed by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati)
LAZARUS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANDHRA EV ANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH Respondent(s)
(AELC) GUNTUR & ORS.
(With appln.(s) for I.R. and IA No.43378/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.43377/2022-PERMISSION TO
FILE SLP and IA No.43381/2022-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF
DATES)
Date : 29-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu, Adv.
Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Puneet Sheoran, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2022.03.29
16:38:23 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) D.8796/2022
2
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted.
2 The grievance of the petitioner is that an ex parte order was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 8 June 2021 directing, inter alia, the petitioner not to interfere with the administration of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC). In a writ appeal, the Division Bench by its order dated 17 September 2021 declined to entertain the challenge, but left it open to the petitioner to move the Single Judge for vacating the interim order.
3 A contempt petition has been filed for breach of the order dated 8 June 2021, in which the High Court on 17 February 2022 issued Form-I notice. According to the petitioner, they have filed an application for vacating the ad–interim order of the Single Judge which has not been taken up. Meantime, it is submitted, the contempt proceedings are being pursued.
4 Since the proceedings are pending before the High Court, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties, particularly in the absence of the respondents, who are not before the Court. However, the petitioner shall respond to the notice which has been issued by the High Court in the contempt proceedings by filing the reply, and be at liberty to persuade the High Court for listing the plea for vacating the interim order at an early date. The Single Judge would be at liberty to consider whether the application for vacating the interim order should be taken up so that the petitioner does not have a grievance in that regard. The Single Judge may consider the request of the petitioner, if so made, for taking up both the application for vacating the interim order and SLP(C) D.8796/2022 3 the contempt petition together.
5 Subject to the aforesaid observation, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
6 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (DIPTI KHURANA)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master