The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that judicial orders, particularly those vacating ad-interim relief, must be reasoned. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside an order that had abruptly discontinued protection granted earlier without providing any justification, emphasizing that procedural fairness demands reasoned decisions at every stage of litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Mohammad Rafique Ibrahim Tambe, had obtained ad-interim relief from the trial court in a civil suit against the Municipal Commissioner and other respondents. The relief, granted on 26 November 2025, was abruptly vacated by the trial court on 23 January 2026 through a one-line order, leaving the appellant without protection and aggrieved by the lack of reasoning.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 26 November 2025: Trial court granted ad-interim relief in Notice of Motion No. 6044 of 2025
- 23 January 2026: Trial court vacated the ad-interim relief without assigning reasons
- 28 January 2026: Appellant filed Appeal from Order (ST) No. 2471 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought restoration of the ad-interim relief and a direction to the trial court to hear the Notice of Motion on merits, while ensuring that the protection remained in force until the final determination of the motion.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was whether a court can vacate ad-interim relief without providing reasons, and if such an order violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant, represented by Mr. I.K. Tripathi and Mr. Akshay R. Kapadia, contended:
- The trial court’s order vacating ad-interim relief was arbitrary and violated the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side)
- Courts are duty-bound to provide reasons for their orders, as held in State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
- The abrupt vacation of relief caused irreparable prejudice to the appellant
For the Respondents
The respondents did not appear to contest the appeal, leaving the Court to decide the matter based on the appellant’s submissions and the record.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court, per Justice Milind N. Jadhav, critically examined the trial court’s order and held:
"When such drastic orders are passed especially when previous ad-interim orders are passed by the Court, it is incumbent on part of the Court to give reasons."
The Court relied on the doctrine of reasoned decisions, a cornerstone of judicial accountability, which mandates that orders affecting parties’ rights must be supported by cogent reasoning. The absence of reasons in the trial court’s order was deemed a procedural irregularity that could not be sustained.
The Court further observed that the trial court’s failure to provide reasons undermined the appellant’s right to effective remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that interim orders, though temporary, have significant consequences and must be subject to the same standards of fairness as final orders.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal and modified the trial court’s order dated 23 January 2026. The key directions were:
- The ad-interim relief granted on 26 November 2025 was restored and would continue until the final hearing of the Notice of Motion on 17 March 2026
- If the trial court’s final order was adverse to the appellant, the ad-interim relief would remain in force for an additional two weeks to allow the appellant to seek further legal recourse
- The trial court was directed to hear the Notice of Motion strictly on merits and in accordance with law
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasoned Orders Are Mandatory
The judgment reinforces that all judicial orders, including interim ones, must be reasoned. Practitioners should:
- Challenge orders that lack reasoning under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or Article 227 of the Constitution
- Argue that unreasoned orders violate natural justice and are liable to be set aside
Procedural Safeguards for Interim Relief
Courts must ensure that parties are not left without recourse when ad-interim relief is vacated:
- Provide a buffer period for parties to approach higher courts, as directed in this case
- Avoid abrupt discontinuance of relief without hearing the affected party
Trial Courts Must Adhere to Higher Standards
Lower courts are now on notice that:
- One-line orders vacating relief are impermissible
- Drastic changes in interim positions require detailed justification
- Procedural compliance is non-negotiable, even in interim matters
