The Supreme Court saw a tense hearing in W.P.(C) 1231/2025 as the Chief Justice questioned Win Chemicals for directly approaching the apex court, bypassing the High Court. The CJI repeatedly asked counsel why the High Court was not approached.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India witnessed a tense hearing in W.P.(C) 1231/2025 , Win Chemicals Ltd v Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd, as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) questioned why the petitioner approached the apex court directly instead of first moving the High Court.
During the proceedings in Court No. 1, the CJI repeatedly asked the petitioner’s counsel,
“Tell us one thing, why can’t you go to the High Court for this direction?”
The counsel explained that delays and pendency before the cooperative court left them with no alternative. Despite this, the Bench persisted, emphasizing,
“Our question is very simple. What prevents you from going to the High Court?”
The petitioner’s counsel argued that earlier efforts before the High Court had yielded no relief, and the matter remained pending despite repeated assurances.
Also Read: CJI Surya Kant: I Will Not Take Browbeating, Not So Easy With Me
However, the Bench appeared unconvinced by these submissions.
In a sharp observation directed at the petitioner, the CJI remarked,
“Of course, even you are a very big industry, your standard is more than the High Court and therefore you feel an inferiority complex without going through the High Court?”
When the counsel continued to highlight that the cooperative court had not complied with previous High Court directions, the CJI delivered his sternest comment,
“If according to you, the cooperative court is not complying with the High Court order, and therefore you have come to the Supreme Court tomorrow if they don’t comply with the Supreme Court order also, then where will you go? Are you going to go to Geneva or where will you go?”
This observation underlined the Supreme Court’s insistence on exhausting High Court remedies before approaching the apex court.
The Bench’s comments reflect the judiciary’s concern over direct approaches to the Supreme Court, especially when existing legal remedies at the High Court level remain unexhausted.
The case continues to highlight the challenges industries face in seeking timely relief from cooperative courts and the Supreme Court’s firm stand on procedural propriety.
This case arises from a long standing dispute between Win Chemicals Ltd and the bank, which is pending before a Cooperative Court in Mumbai.
In a previous instance of this litigation (W.P.(C) No. 790/2023), Win Chemicals had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, requesting a directive for the speedy disposal of the cooperative court case (Dispute No. CC/1/17 of 2017) due to prolonged delays.
The Supreme Court dismissed that petition without granting the specific relief sought, but permitted the petitioner the option to continue pursuing the matter in the appropriate forum.
In the current petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that previous attempts before the High Court had not resulted in any relief, with matters still unresolved despite assurances. However, the Bench appeared skeptical of this assertion.
Case Title: Win Chemicals Ltd v Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd
Read Attachment:
Read Live Coverage