Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.47 seconds)
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs K.Vasimalai ... 1St on 14 August, 2014 cites

K. Rajamouli vs A.V.K.N. Swamy on 3 May, 2001

In K. Rajamouli v. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 following the Judgment in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Kunhayammed this Court further explained the principle of res judicata and held as follows: (K.Rajamouli case, SCC p.41, para 4) "4. Following the decision in the case of Kunhayammed we are of the view that the dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court would not constitute res judicata when a special leave petition is filed against the order passed in the review petition provided the review petition was filed prior to filing of special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court. The position would be different where after dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment a party files a review petition after a long delay on the ground that the party was prosecuting remedy by way of special leave petition. In such a situation the filing of review would be an abuse of the process of the law. We are in agreement with the view taken in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm that if the High Court allows the review petition filed after the special leave petition was dismissed after condoning the delay, it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court. But this is not the case here. In the present case, the review petition was filed well within time and since the review petition was not being decided by the High Court, the appellant filed the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondent and hold that this appeal arising out of special leave petition is maintainable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 85 - S N Phukan - Full Document

Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 March, 2013

6. Per contra, Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the learned Judge after considering all the materials available before him, had correctly allowed the writ petition, warranting no interference at the hands of this Court. He also brought to our attention to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay and others v. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 152, as to the applicability of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of pay and allowances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 55 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000

13. We also notice that several statutes confer on aggrieved parties right of appeal to the Supreme Court in contra distinction with the powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, for instance, Section 15-Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act (SEBI), 1992 confers a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal. So also various regulatory legislations provide for statutory right of appeal. To what extent, the principle of res judicata and merger would apply in respect of a decision rendered by this Court while exercising its statutory power of appeal as well as the one rendered while entertaining an appeal invoking Article 136 is not seen considered by the larger bench either in Abbai Maligai or Kunhayammed case, which is also, in our view, an issue to be considered by the larger Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 1157 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 16 August, 2010

In Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383, this Court after referring to Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Kunhayammed expressed the following view: (Meghmala case, SCC p. 394, paras 25-26) "25. Thus, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that in case a litigant files a review petition before filing the special leave petition before this Court and it remains pending till the special leave petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered. In case it is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special leave petition, the process of filing review application amounts to abuse of process of the court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 311 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next