Supreme Court Sets Aside Injunction on CEOA

Case Name: CEOA Educational Society & Anr. vs. M. Thilaga Terency & Ors.
Court/Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9204/2026).
Date of Order: 21 May 2026.
Underlying High Court Order Date: 07 May 2026 (WPCRL(MD) No. 2730/2026).
Period of Dispute: Challenge to a summoning order dated 29 April 2026 and an injunction concerning property in Survey No. 182/1B.

Petitioners: CEOA Educational Society & Anr.
Respondents: M. Thilaga Terency & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioners: S. Nagamuthu (Senior Counsel), P. Chandrashekharan, Mary Mitzy, B. Ravikiran Singh, Oleander D. Singh, Pratham Sadh; Advocate‑on‑Record: Ashutosh Jha.
Counsel for Respondents: Mayilsamy K., G. Ananda Selvam, P. Srinivasan (AOR); Advocate‑on‑Record: P. Soma Sundaram.
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.

Petitioners challenged the summoning order dated 29‑04‑2026 issued by the High Court in a criminal writ petition.
The High Court, while entertaining the petition, issued interim directions:

1. Regarding a house on Survey No. 182/1B.

2. Regarding another building on the same survey number, injuncting the petitioners from interfering with peaceful possession of the property.

Petitioners contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction in a criminal writ proceeding where the only relief sought was against the summoning order.

The Supreme Court observed that the injunction was granted “in a writ jurisdiction on a criminal side where the challenge is only to the summoning order.”
It expressed surprise at the manner in which the injunction was issued, emphasizing that the High Court had no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the part of the impugned order injuncting the petitioners could not be sustained in law.

The Supreme Court set aside the portion of the High Court order that injuncted the petitioners from interfering with possession of the property in Survey No. 182/1B.
The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were given liberty to pursue other legal remedies available to protect their interest/possession over the same property.
The Court directed that any pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Respondents may now seek alternative legal avenues (e.g., civil suit, execution proceedings) to protect their possession rights.
No further compliance measures or financial penalties were imposed on either party.

Appeal Allowed. The injunction portion of the High Court order is set aside.
Liberty granted to respondents to explore other remedies for protecting their property interest.
Pending applications are to be disposed of.
The order is signed by Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti on 21 May 2026.