SUPREME COURT REITERATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF NOT ENTERTAINING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST AN ORDER REJECTING THE REVIEW PETITION WHEN MAIN JUDGMENT IS NOT UNDER CHALLENGE HAS BECOME A PRECEDENTIAL PRINCIPLE.

 


T.K. David Vs. Kuruppampady Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Ors, (2020) 10 SC CK 0006

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court while dismissing a special leave to appeal against the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 06.02.2020 rejecting the Review Petition filed by the petitioner in Writ Appeal held that the rationale for not entertaining a special leave petition challenging the order of High Court rejecting the review petition when main order in the writ petition is not challenged can be easily comprehended. Against the main judgment the SLP having been dismissed earlier the same having become final between the parties cannot be allowed to be affected at the instance of petitioner. When the main judgment of the High Court cannot be effected in any manner, no relief can be granted by this Court in the special leave petition filed against order rejecting review application to review the main judgment of the High Court. This Court does not entertain a special leave petition in which no relief can be granted. It is due to this reason that this Court in Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Anr. (supra) has held that principle of not entertaining special leave petition against an order rejecting the review petition when main judgment is not under challenge has become a precedential principle. We reiterate the above precedential principle in this case again.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DELIVERING A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT GRANTED INTERIM PROTECTION TO THE JOURNALIST ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI

Image
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors., (2020) 11 SC CK 0038 While disposing of the Criminal Appeal filed by the Journalist Mr. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami against the Order of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that interim protection which has been granted to the above accused by the order dated 11 November 2020 shall continue to remain in operation pending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court and thereafter for a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment of the High Court, should it become necessary for all or any of them to take further recourse to their remedies in accordance with law. In said Judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the Chief Justices of every High Court should in their administrative capacities utilize the ICT tools which are placed at their disposal in ensuring that access to justice is democratized and equitably allocated. Liberty is not a gift for the few...
Read more

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Image
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  - IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON  ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. A.K. Gopalan Vs. The State Of Madras , (1950) 05 SC CK 0006 2. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Another, (1978) 01 SC CK 0026 3. Hussainara Khatoon And Others Vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, (1979) 05 SC CK 0021 4. Vineet Narain And Others Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Another, (1997) 12 SC CK 0045 5. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government Of India, New Delhi And Others, (1967) 04 SC CK 0034 6. Kharak Singh Vs. The State Of U.P. And Others, (1962) 12 SC CK 0019 7. Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration And Others Etc., (1978) 08 SC CK 0001 8. Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration, (1980) 04 SC CK 0040 9. Pt. Parmanand Katara, Advocate Vs. Union Of India (UOI) And Another, (1995) 01 SC CK 0074 10. Consumer Education And Research Center A...
Read more