Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2026 / Diary 1018

GOYAL PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. v. PREETI BHUTANI

Supreme Court of India | Diary 1018/2026

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

12-01-2026

Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

Petitioner

GOYAL PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.

Respondent

PREETI BHUTANI

Primary Holding

When a party's cross-objections have not been considered by the High Court, the appropriate remedy is to return to the High Court rather than invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136.

Download PDF Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

1 ITEM NO.68 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 878/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-12-2025 in ARB.A.(COMM.) No. 28/2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] GOYAL PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS PREETI BHUTANI & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 8206/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 8613/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 12-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Adv. Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Mr. Siddanth Chamola, Adv. Mr. Shubham Arun, Adv. Ms. Ira S Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Varad Kolhe, Adv. Mr. Akshay Joshi, Adv. Mr. Udit Sidhra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saumitr, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, AOR Ms. Rajeshwari H, Adv. Ms. Garima Joshi, Adv. Ms. Sawani Chothe, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, has a grievance to redress saying that although his clients had filed

2 cross-objections, yet those have not been taken into consideration by the High Court while passing the impugned Judgment and Order. 2. If that be so, the petitioners should go back to the High Court with an appropriate petition. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. 4. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. (JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India