Case Details

  • Case Name: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) – Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jaiwanti & Ors.
  • Court: Supreme Court of India, Court No.1, Section II‑A.
  • Date of Hearing: 26‑05‑2026; Order dated 27‑05‑2026.
  • Reference: Arising from impugned High Court judgments dated 08‑05‑2026 in CRLA Nos. 337/2026, 633/2022, 932/2022.

Parties Involved

  • Petitioner: Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd.
  • Respondents: Jaiwanti & Ors.
  • State Representative: State of Maharashtra, appeared by Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik and counsel Shrirang B. Varma.
  • Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Gaurav Agarwal, Ms. Anannya Ghosh, AOR Mr. Arjun Rao, Adv. Dushyant Manocha, Adv. Mrinalini Mishra.
  • Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Ms. Damini Vishwakarma, Mr. B. Dhananjay, Juristrust Law Offices, AOR Mr. Anil Kaushik, ASG; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, AOR; Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, AOR.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • Petition sought permission to file a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s final judgment and order dated 08‑05‑2026 (CRLA Nos. 337/2026, 633/2022, 932/2022).
  • The State of Maharashtra indicated it is aggrieved by paragraphs 57 and 58 of the same impugned judgment and intends to file its own SLP.

Findings & Observations

  • The Court observed that no adverse order has been passed against the State of Maharashtra; the removal of an officer was solely due to conduct, with liberty to appoint a new competent authority.
  • The Court noted the petitioner’s withdrawal of the SLP application.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • The application for permission to file the Special Leave Petition and the main case were dismissed as withdrawn.
  • No monetary penalties or settlements were imposed.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • The State of Maharashtra may notify a new competent authority in accordance with paragraph 63 of the High Court judgment.
  • Quikr Realty Pvt. Ltd. will approach the High Court through a review application instead of the SLP.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The Supreme Court ordered the withdrawal of the SLP application and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
  • The State retains the liberty to file its own Special Leave Petition against the High Court judgment.