5 Lakhs for Supreme Court I

Though both parties have addressed this Court at length on merits and have also taken us through voluminous documents, we do not find it necessary to go into those issues.

Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali as well as Justice A.N. Sen in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8 have a common thread. For an Order to be construed as a ‘Judgment’, within scope of Clause 15 of Letters Patent, it must have traits and trappings of finality.

As such, Order passed by Learned Single Judge did not contain traits and trappings of finality. It cannot be construed to be a ‘Judgment’, within meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Appeal to Division Bench of High Court was not tenable.


Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 381 observed, Appellate Court cannot usurp jurisdiction of Single Judge to decide as to whether tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are made out.  

Such unwarranted proceedings, at behest of parties who can afford to bear expenses of such litigations, must be discouraged. Shyam Steel Industries Limited shall pay Rs. 5 Lakhs to Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.

Learned Senior Counsel, Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared on behalf of Shyam Steel Industries Limited.

Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Shyam Sel & Power Limited v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited, [Civil Appeal No. 1984 of 2022].