Case Details

  • Case Name: M/S Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
  • Petition: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25437/2023 (arising from impugned final judgment dated 19-09-2023 in CWJC No. 1848/2023 of the Patna High Court).
  • Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India.
  • Case/Order No.: SLP(C) No. 25437/2023; Diary Nos. 508/2025 (III‑B) and 16382/2026.
  • Date of Hearing: 22‑05‑2026.
  • Relevant Applications: IA No.236216/2023 (exemption from filing), IA No.17502/2024 (intervention), IA No.2218/2024 (exemption from filing C/C of impugned judgment), IA No.2219/2024 (exemption from filing O.T.), IA No.2220/2024 (permission to file additional documents), IA No.22856/2025 (condonation of delay).

Parties Involved

  • Petitioner: Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.
  • Respondents: State of Bihar & Others.
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Counsel Vipin Jain, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Shilpa Balani, Vishnu Sharma A S, Vishal Aggarwal, Abhishek Deodhar, Tuhina Sinha, Tarun Gulati, Kishore Kunal, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rajeev Bhalla, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Yash, Yajur Bhalla, Rohit Pandey, Ritesh Khatri, Soumya Khanna, Anchita Nayyar, among others.
  • Counsel for Respondents: Mahesh Agarwal, Alok Yadav, Abhinabh Garg, Mihir Mehta, Siddhi Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, Samir Ali Khan, Dr. Avinash Poddar, Ishita Farsaiya, Samiksha Goswami, Rudhrani Mishra, Awadhesh Sharma, Prabhleen A Shukla, N. Venkataraman, Gurmeet Singh Makker, V C Bharathi, Ashok Panigrahi, Siddharth Sinha, Annirudh Sharma‑ii, Amritha Chandramouli, Udai Khanna, Rajeev Ranjan, Karan Lahiri, Abhishek Rastogi, Pooja Rastogi, Meenal Songire, Nikhil Jain, Divya Jain.
  • Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • The petitioner sought multiple exemptions from procedural requirements and permission to file additional documents related to the impugned judgment of the Patna High Court.
  • No substantive commercial or regulatory violations were detailed; the matters were procedural in nature.

Findings & Observations

  • The Court observed that the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Vipin Jain, stated that the dispute had resolved itself.
  • Consequently, the Court considered the pending procedural applications moot.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • Order Points:

1. Delay in filing is condoned.

2. Special leave is granted.

3. The matter is listed for hearing in September 2026.

4. Upon the petitioner’s declaration that the dispute is resolved, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

  • No monetary penalties or settlements were imposed.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • No further compliance measures were directed beyond the scheduled September 2026 hearing, which became unnecessary due to dismissal.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 25437/2023) is dismissed as infructuous.
  • The dismissal is final, and no further court action is required unless a new dispute arises.