Case Name: The State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. K-9 Enterprises
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Petition Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11543/2025
Date of Judgement: 16-May-2025
Section Involved: Procedural—Condonation of Delay, Special Leave under Article 136
Category of Dispute: Appeal Procedure / Limitation
Relevant Provision: Article 136 of Constitution of India
Facts of the Case (¶1):
- The State of Karnataka filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court of Karnataka’s final judgments dated 02.04.2024 in six Writ Appeals (WA No. 100425 to 100430 of 2023).
- The petition was filed with a delay of 243 days, and applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling were submitted (IA Nos. 119302/2025 and 119303/2025).
Question(s) in Consideration (¶1-2):
- Whether the Supreme Court should condone the delay of 243 days in filing the SLP.
- Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka merited interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Observations of the Court (¶1):
- The Court noted that the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay was unsatisfactory.
- Upon review of the SLP, the Bench found no merit in the case to warrant the exercise of its discretion under Article 136.
Judgement of the Court (¶2-3):
- The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on two grounds: delay of 243 days and lack of merit in the appeal.
- All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Between Fine Lines (5-line Summary):
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the State of Karnataka against K-9 Enterprises due to a 243-day delay that was not convincingly justified. The Court found no merit in the appeal itself. It reiterated that procedural delays must be explained properly and merit must be evident for intervention under Article 136. Pending applications were also closed. This puts a closure on the matter in favour of K-9 Enterprises.
Summary of Referred Cases:
None cited in this brief Supreme Court order.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
