Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 08-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Petitioner) vs. M/s Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. & ANR (Respondents). The State of Uttar Pradesh appears as Respondent No. 2.
  • Origin: Petition arises from the impugned final judgment and order dated 09‑02‑2026 in WRITC No. 8940/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
  • Procedural Applications: IA No. 269426/2026 (condonation of delay), IA No. 269396/2026 (exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment), IA No. 269425/2026 (exemption from filing O.T.), IA No. 269428/2026 (permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures).
  • Hearing Details: Heard on 08‑10‑2026 before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva. Counsel for petitioner included Sr. Adv. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Binay Kumar Das, Adv. Priyanka Das, Adv. Neha Das, Adv. Shivam Saksena, Adv. Sukhdev Sharma. Counsel for respondents included Sr. Adv. Parag P Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Joy Basu, Adv. Kanak Bose, AOR Abhinav (2945), Adv. Anoop George, Adv. Vibha Narang.
  • Observations: Delay of 87 days in filing the Special Leave Petition was not opposed by respondent No. 1 (Mahagun India). Respondent No. 2, the State of Uttar Pradesh, is a formal party and does not contest the application.

Order Details

  • The 87‑day delay is condoned.
  • Notice: Issue notice, returnable by 30‑Oct‑2026.
  • Service of Notice:
  • Respondent No. 1’s counsel, Mr. Abhinav, waives service and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1; therefore, no service required for respondent No. 1.
  • Notice to the unrepresented respondent No. 2 (State of Uttar Pradesh) shall be served by all modes, including dasti.
  • Petitioner's counsel is permitted to effect service of notice upon the standing/designated counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
  • Further Filings: Counter‑affidavits to be filed within two weeks from the date of the order or from the date of service of notice, whichever is later. Any rejoinder(s) to be filed within one week thereafter.

Final Outcome

  • The Court condoned the filing delay, set procedural timelines for notice issuance and service, and prescribed deadlines for counter‑affidavits and rejoinders, thereby allowing the petition to proceed.

Topics: Procedural Order, Real Estate Litigation