Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Lazarus vs Andhra Ev Angelical Lutheran Church ... on 25 April, 2022
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant
1
ITEM NO.12 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
Miscellaneous Application No.718-719/2022 in
SLP(C) No. 5652-5653/2022
LAZARUS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANDHRA EV ANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (AELC)
GUNTUR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(WITH IA No. 58512/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
Date : 25-04-2022 These applications were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pai Amit, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 An ex parte ad interim order was passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 3 June 2021, against which a writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17 September 2021, with liberty to the petitioner to move the Single Judge for vacating the interim order.
2 In the Special Leave Petition before this Court challenging the order in the writ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.04.26 appeal, an order was passed on 29 March 2022 by which this Court permitted 17:02:04 IST Reason: the petitioner, in terms of the liberty which was granted, to move the Single Judge so that the application for vacating the interim order could be taken up, 2 3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that an application has been filed before the High Court for withdrawal of the writ petition in which the ad interim order was passed and, similarly, there is an application for withdrawal of the contempt proceedings. Notwithstanding this, it is urged that the contempt proceedings are being pressed forward without taking the application for vacating the ad interim order dated 3 June 2021 on board for hearing. 4 The purport of paragraph 4 of the previous order of this Court dated 29 March 2022 was that the petitioner was permitted to move the Single Judge for vacating the ad interim order so that the grievance that the contempt proceedings were being pressed without dealing with the application for modification would be duly met. The petitioner has a subsisting grievance that the Single Judge has not taken the application for vacating the ad interim order for hearing. Hence, we now direct that the application which has been filed for vacating the ad interim order dated 3 June 2021 shall be taken up first and shall be dealt with in accordance with law, before taking up the contempt proceedings.
5 We would request the Single Judge, in view of the above directions, to defer the contempt proceedings until the application for vacating the ad interim order is taken up.
6 The Miscellaneous Applications are accordingly disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER