Interim Order

In exceptional circumstances involving flagrant violation of law, wrongful exercise of jurisdiction or manifest grave injustice, an aggrieved party can approach Supreme Court in terms of Article 185(3) of the Constitution with the request to set aside even an interim order falling within the category of such exceptions.

Appellant was aggrieved of provisional attachment order passed by Trial Court, against which High Court did grant any interim relief

Plea raised by authorities was that appeal against provisional attachment order was not maintainable as order of High Court was an interim order

Validity

Order of attachment under Section 8 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 was otherwise final for the taxpayer whose all immovable and moveable properties, including bank accounts were attached without providing any opportunity of being heard, in consequence whereof, the entire business had come to an halt

No other remedy was provided under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 except to challenge the same by filing appeal under Section 23 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010

Matter fell within the exceptions to exercise discretion under Article 185(3) of the Constitution to obliviate miscarriage of justice

Supreme Court suspended operation of order of attachment of properties, passed by Trial Court, till final decision of appeal pending before High Court

Appeal was allowed.

Appellant assailed an interim order which essentially had modified earlier ad-interim orders in previous civil suits passed by Trial Court (Single Bench of High Court) ('modified impugned order')

Case of the appellant was that there were some bunch of cases of like nature and earlier ad interim orders were being observed in two suits, however, when all said suits were clubbed together, the ad interim order in latest suit passed on CMA was modified

Claim being that it could not have been done unless the office had fixed the application on that day

Validity

Appellant may be right in understanding that the earlier ad interim orders passed in the referred suits and the one modified in one of those suits have overlapped each other but there is no dispute that these were only interim/ad-interim orders

Present appeal was only against a modified impugned order which was of interim nature, which might have overlapped the earlier one in another similar nature suit clubbed together

Appeals against ad-interim/interim orders are not to be entertained unless exceptional circumstances and serious injustice is shown

Grievances of appellant could be remedied once the application is heard and decided finally

The suit is ripe for hearing only when the issues are framed and not otherwise

In the present case, the consideration is totally different; it was only an ad-interim order which was modified and is still an interim order

If an ad-interim order could be granted after hearing a counsel, it can always be modified if the circumstances require so, subject to final conclusion to be drawn after hearing

Since it is only an interim order, the appellant / counsel may assist the Trial Court (Single Bench of High Court ) in reaching to a just and lawful conclusion and seek disposal of the pending application as required under the law

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Interim orders are made in the aid of the final order that the court may pass and they merge into the final order and do not survive after the final adjudication.

Interim orders are made in the aid of the final order that the court may pass and they merge into the final order and do not survive after the final adjudication.

Object of passing an interim/ interlocutory order is to maintain the status quo, the situation obtaining on the date when a party aggrieved by a certain action approaches the court, and to ensure that meanwhile no new development detrimental to rights of the parties is created, which may pose a hurdle in the way of deciding the case on merits.

Where dismissal of such application was tantamount to declining the relief of interim maintenance allowance permissible to the minor during the pendency of suit, it amounted to final determination of claim to that extent and hence could not be treated merely as an interim/interlocutory order that did not finally determine anything

Such dismissal would amount to 'a decision given' in terms of S.14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964

Consequently an appeal against the same would be available before the Appellate Court in case the minor was aggrieved of the same on any available ground.

Passing of an interim order was a sense of duty attached to the judicial system where circumstances so demanded, and sometimes in the interest of justice, no separate or specific provision was de regueur to give power to a court to pass an interim order

Court had inherent power to act as ex debito justitiae even in cases not provided for by rules but such powers were structured and put into effect on examination of facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether equitable jurisdiction may be exercised in favour of a party or not.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of interim order passed by authorities on the application filed by respondent trade union

Validity

Order in question passed by National Industrial Relations Commission was provisional in nature, effective till next date and no final order was passed even interlocutory application was pending before the Commission

Petitioner company had got an adequate remedy to challenge final order, in case, the order, if any, was passed against petitioner company even on interlocutory application

Question relating jurisdiction was to be raised before Court or forum seized with the matter either in pleadings and/or by making a proper application

National Industrial Relations Commission while dismissing appeal filed on behalf of petitioner company against order in question directed the authorities to decide interlocutory application on merits expeditiously in accordance with law, advising petitioner company to raise and agitate all points before the authorities

Petitioner company made no effort to place and agitate its case before authorities and instead of doing so Constitutional petition was filed

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appeal was dismissed.

Legislature had prohibited filing of appeal against interim order.

Review could not be granted on the ground that a party was not satisfied from the order / judgment or a different view of matter was also possible or a different interpretation of law could be made

Court had power and was in fact obliged to review order which suffered from patent error floating on surface of record and court could correct itself if it was wrong but error or wrong was to be substantial and speaking

Court had to meet ends of justice and carry out purpose of all contemporary laws according to due appreciation of law and facts

High Court observed that contentions and views of parties were to be considered compassionately, more particularly when welfare and betterment of a ward was involved

High Court declined to review its order passed earlier

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Connotation.

In the present case, Single Judge of High Court, without hearing the application on merits had passed interim orders which was not justified

Impugned interim order was set aside in High Court Appeal and Single Judge was directed to decide all the pending applications accordingly

Appeal was disposed of.

Scope of challenging interim order under Art.199 of the Constitution is narrow and limited.

Petitioner, who was defendant in complaint before Consumer Court, impugned order of Consumer Court whereby he was ordered to appear in person

Contention of the petitioner/defendant was that said order for personal appearance, was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside

Validity

Consumer Court under S.30 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 had same powers as vested in a civil court under C.P.C. in respect of various matters in relation to trying of a suit, and under O. V, R.3 C.P.C. , the court may order personal appearance of parties to the suit, therefore, the Consumer Court had jurisdiction to order personal appearance of the petitioner/defendant

Impugned order was also interim in nature and questions as to the propriety of such interim order could not be entertained in a constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution is maintainable even against an interim order, if the same is void ab-initio, without jurisdiction or if the same has attained the status of a final order.

Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal under S.4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, is limited to appeals against final orders passed by departmental authority.

In family matters interim orders could not be assailed through constitutional petition unless any interim order attained the characteristic of final order.

Interim, order given in the absence of the other party would remain in operation unless it was recalled or the petition was disposed of after hearing the parties or disposed of after providing them sufficient chance of being heard

Contention that transfer being part of terms and conditions as contained in the appointment letter which was accepted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment, such act covered by the principle of estoppel and he could not agitate the matter, was repelled

Terms and conditions of employment within the meaning of Labour Laws, were subject to change as a result of collective bargaining and even otherwise, application of the principle of estoppel could not be applied to the grievance of the employee regarding frequent transfer or transfer on account of mala fides and unfair deal with the employee.

Family Court while staying execution of decree directed petitioner to deposit Rs.1,000 per month as maintenance allowance of his wife and daughter till decision of his application for setting aside ex parte decree

Constitutional petition was disposed of with observation that such interim order could be challenged at the time of filing appeal against final decision of application for setting aside ex parte decree.

Even otherwise the impugned order being in accordance with law Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Making of interim order-Held, a part of working of judicial system-No separate or specific provision necessary to empower Court to issue an interim order.