Appellate Court advises against overlapping interim relief orders, reserves liberty for expedited proceedings.
In a significant judgment delivered on May 7, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, comprised of Justices Sachin Shankar Magadum and Rajesh Rai K, emphasized the importance of judicial discipline when handling interim relief applications in appellate proceedings. The court ruled against granting interim reliefs that mirror those already reserved for orders by the Court of first instance.
The case, involving Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited and Dr. Rakshita Singh, arose from an appeal challenging the order of the Commercial Court, which had reserved its pronouncement on interim relief without providing immediate protection to the appellant. Sorting Hat Technologies, represented by advocate Sri. Kashyap N. Naik, argued that the delay in pronouncement left them vulnerable to continued defamatory actions by the respondent, impacting their business reputation.
The High Court highlighted the potential for judicial inconsistency if appellate courts engage in parallel adjudication of interlocutory matters that are actively being considered by the court of first instance. It underscored that such practice could pre-empt the adjudicatory process and lead to overlapping decisions, undermining the integrity of judicial orders.
The appellate bench, while dismissing the appeal, granted liberty to Sorting Hat Technologies to approach the Commercial Court for an expedited pronouncement on the pending interim relief application. The High Court expressed its expectation that the Commercial Court would act promptly and in accordance with legal principles in addressing such requests.
This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must exercise restraint and respect the jurisdiction of lower courts, especially in interlocutory matters, to avoid conflicting rulings and ensure coherent judicial processes.
Bottom line:-
Appellate Court should refrain from granting interim reliefs that are already under active consideration before the Court of first instance, as this may lead to overlapping consideration and inconsistency in judicial orders.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure - Principles governing appellate interference, Civil Procedure - Commercial Court - Request for early pronouncement of orders
