[Extension of Interim orders amid COVID-19] Parties can move for relief in urgent cases, no need for further clarification: Delhi High Court

A Delhi High Court Full Bench on Tuesday reiterated that while interim orders stand extended until July 6, 2021, given the ongoing COVID-19 second wave, parties can still approach courts for appropriate relief if there are urgent grounds for doing so. .An application had been moved by Religare Finvest, which was aggrieved over the extension of an interim bail order, obtained purportedly through an abuse of court process. .Appearing for the applicant, advocate Sandeep Das argued that this interim bail order was extended only on account of the April 20, 2021 order passed by the Full Bench, whereby it extended the life of all interim orders until July 6..[BREAKING] All subsisting interim orders issued by Delhi High Court, subordinate courts, extended till July 16 [READ ORDER].He questioned whether this April 20, 2021 order ought to be made applicable to cases filed after January 1, 2021, and which had been listed or heard thereafter. .This was in view of the fact that the April 20, 2021 order had referred to earlier office orders which were only applicable to orders passed until December 31. Das contended that the automatic extension of interim orders, by virtue of the April 20 order, should only be applicable to cases filed before 2021. .The matter was heard by Justices Vipin Sanghi, Rekha Palli and Talwant Singh this afternoon. The Court orally observed that if the applicant's interpretation is adopted, more chaos may ensue..It was further pointed out that the prisoners are already being released following the High Powered Committee's recommendations. .The Court added that while some cases filed in 2021 were earlier listed to be taken up on various dates prior to the April 20 order, this did not indicate that the Court is bound to hear them. Rather, given the present pandemic situation, most of these cases are being adjourned, the Bench pointed out. .Justice Sanghi remarked that the applicant appears to have mixed two separate issues. i.e. continuation of interim orders and listing of cases. The April 20 order has nothing to do with listing of cases, he said. ."Even today, decision of Full court is that only urgent matters would be taken up," he remarked. .The Court explained that it has already clarified in the April 20 order that parties may approach courts for the vacation of an interim order if its extension causes prejudice and some urgent or grave ground has been made out. ."The criteria is urgency. If ground made out for urgency, those applications are being listed ... If you have to move for vacation of interim order, they are being entertained ... There is no need for any clarification on this", the Court orally observed. .The order passed today stated:."In view of the ongoing pandemic and the virtual lockdown imposed by the State, it is very difficult ... impossible for counsel and parties to pursue legal proceedings. That being the position, with a view to protect the interest of litigants...we passed the (April 20 order) ... At the same time, we were conscious of the fact that a blanket detention of interim orders may cause hardship or an extreme nature to a party to such proceedings. Consequently, we reserved a right to seek appropriate relief in appropriate cases.".The order further recorded that even where returnable dates were issued (prior to April 20, 2021), in cases filed this year, such cases are being adjourned as and when they are listed unless a party is able to make out a case of grave or extreme urgency. .During the hearing, the Bench pointed out that such dates were given at the time because no one knew that the present (pandemic) situation would arise. ."Merely because those cases may have a returnable date after April 20, it does not follow that the court would take up the matter even when serious or grave urgency made out by party," the Court added in its order..As such, the Court proceeded to dispose of the application before it by observing that if the applicant is able to make out a case of "grave hardship of an extreme nature", the court concerned "may entertain his application seeking a recall of interim bail."