Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.40 seconds)
Kanoria Industries Limited & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2017 cites

Gangadhara Palo vs The Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr on 8 March, 2011

5. The senior counsel for the review petitioners has contended (i) that once the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of a SLP without recording reasons, it is as if no appeal was ever filed or entertained since in the absence of grant of special leave, there is no appeal in existence; (ii) that where a SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and equally when it is dismissed in limine without recording reasons, the High Court‟s judgment neither merges into any proceedings before the Supreme Court nor is it in any manner affected by the filing and subsequent withdrawal or dismissal of the SLP; (iii) that a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 expressly concerned with the issue of maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal in limine of the SLP R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 2 of 12 and after noticing conflicting judgments held that a review petition can be filed subsequent to the dismissal of an SLP inasmuch as at the stage of dismissal of an SLP, there exists no appeal in the eyes of law as at that stage the Supreme Court is exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction; only when the Supreme Court grants leave in SLP and converts it into an appeal and the appeal thereafter is disposed of with or without reasons, that the judgment of the Supreme Court merges with that of the High Court and where-after review petition cannot be filed; (iv) that Kunhayammed (supra) has been followed in National Housing Coop. Society Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 149, Palani Roman Catholic Mission Vs. S. Bagirathi Ammal (2009) 16 SCC 657, Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011) 4 SCC 602, Bakshi Dev Raj Vs. Sudheer Kumar (2011) 8 SCC 679, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij (2010) 8 SCC 701 and Sri Ram Builders Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 102; (v) that the earlier judgment also of a three Judges Bench in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm Vs. K. Santhakumaran (1998) 7 SCC 386 turned on its own facts; in that case SLP was dismissed on merits, after issuance of notice and a full contest between the parties; it was in such a situation that the Supreme Court held that subsequent to dismissal of SLP in that case, review petition could not have been entertained by the High Court; (vi) that it is not as if Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) was not noticed in Kunhayammed (supra); it was held to be not laying down the law to the contrary; (vii) that the judgments in K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 and Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383 though subsequent to Kunhayammed R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 3 of 12 (supra) and "opined in passing" that a review petition subsequent to dismissal of SLP is not maintainable but are of two Judges Benches and again turn on their own facts; (viii) that K. Rajamouli (supra) in fact has been considered in Gangadhara Palo (supra) where it has been held that K. Rajamouli (supra) is not a precedent; (ix) that Meghmala (supra) has been considered in Sri Ram Builders (supra) as contrary to Kunhayammed (supra) and Gangadhara Palo (supra); (x) that the correctness of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) has in any case been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Vs. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 291; (xi) that though in the facts aforesaid, there is no conflict of opinion but even if it were to be held so, as per the judgment dated 10th February, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CRL) No.2444/2006 titled Gopa Manish Vora Vs. Union of India and Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera Vs. Umrao AIR 1981 P&H 213, it is open to the High Court to follow that judgment which in its opinion lays down the law more correctly; (xii) that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India 2016 (154) DRJ 698 though on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) holding review to be not maintainable after dismissal of SLP but is per incuriam Gangadhara and Sri Ram Builders (supra) and other judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 91 - Full Document

Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr on 19 August, 2010

5. The senior counsel for the review petitioners has contended (i) that once the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of a SLP without recording reasons, it is as if no appeal was ever filed or entertained since in the absence of grant of special leave, there is no appeal in existence; (ii) that where a SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and equally when it is dismissed in limine without recording reasons, the High Court‟s judgment neither merges into any proceedings before the Supreme Court nor is it in any manner affected by the filing and subsequent withdrawal or dismissal of the SLP; (iii) that a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 expressly concerned with the issue of maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal in limine of the SLP R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 2 of 12 and after noticing conflicting judgments held that a review petition can be filed subsequent to the dismissal of an SLP inasmuch as at the stage of dismissal of an SLP, there exists no appeal in the eyes of law as at that stage the Supreme Court is exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction; only when the Supreme Court grants leave in SLP and converts it into an appeal and the appeal thereafter is disposed of with or without reasons, that the judgment of the Supreme Court merges with that of the High Court and where-after review petition cannot be filed; (iv) that Kunhayammed (supra) has been followed in National Housing Coop. Society Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 149, Palani Roman Catholic Mission Vs. S. Bagirathi Ammal (2009) 16 SCC 657, Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011) 4 SCC 602, Bakshi Dev Raj Vs. Sudheer Kumar (2011) 8 SCC 679, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij (2010) 8 SCC 701 and Sri Ram Builders Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 102; (v) that the earlier judgment also of a three Judges Bench in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm Vs. K. Santhakumaran (1998) 7 SCC 386 turned on its own facts; in that case SLP was dismissed on merits, after issuance of notice and a full contest between the parties; it was in such a situation that the Supreme Court held that subsequent to dismissal of SLP in that case, review petition could not have been entertained by the High Court; (vi) that it is not as if Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) was not noticed in Kunhayammed (supra); it was held to be not laying down the law to the contrary; (vii) that the judgments in K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 and Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383 though subsequent to Kunhayammed R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 3 of 12 (supra) and "opined in passing" that a review petition subsequent to dismissal of SLP is not maintainable but are of two Judges Benches and again turn on their own facts; (viii) that K. Rajamouli (supra) in fact has been considered in Gangadhara Palo (supra) where it has been held that K. Rajamouli (supra) is not a precedent; (ix) that Meghmala (supra) has been considered in Sri Ram Builders (supra) as contrary to Kunhayammed (supra) and Gangadhara Palo (supra); (x) that the correctness of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) has in any case been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Vs. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 291; (xi) that though in the facts aforesaid, there is no conflict of opinion but even if it were to be held so, as per the judgment dated 10th February, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CRL) No.2444/2006 titled Gopa Manish Vora Vs. Union of India and Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera Vs. Umrao AIR 1981 P&H 213, it is open to the High Court to follow that judgment which in its opinion lays down the law more correctly; (xii) that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India 2016 (154) DRJ 698 though on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) holding review to be not maintainable after dismissal of SLP but is per incuriam Gangadhara and Sri Ram Builders (supra) and other judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 100 - D Verma - Full Document

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

The Division Bench, after holding that the petitioner therein by way of review was indeed seeking a re-hearing and which was not permissible in review and that a contrary view in a subsequent judgment is not an error apparent on the face of the record to invite review, also on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) and without noticing Kunhayammed (supra) held the review petition to be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 85 - S N Phukan - Full Document

Khoday Distilleries Ltd.& Ors vs Mahadeshwara S.S.K.Ltd on 19 October, 2012

5. The senior counsel for the review petitioners has contended (i) that once the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of a SLP without recording reasons, it is as if no appeal was ever filed or entertained since in the absence of grant of special leave, there is no appeal in existence; (ii) that where a SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and equally when it is dismissed in limine without recording reasons, the High Court‟s judgment neither merges into any proceedings before the Supreme Court nor is it in any manner affected by the filing and subsequent withdrawal or dismissal of the SLP; (iii) that a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 expressly concerned with the issue of maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal in limine of the SLP R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 2 of 12 and after noticing conflicting judgments held that a review petition can be filed subsequent to the dismissal of an SLP inasmuch as at the stage of dismissal of an SLP, there exists no appeal in the eyes of law as at that stage the Supreme Court is exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction; only when the Supreme Court grants leave in SLP and converts it into an appeal and the appeal thereafter is disposed of with or without reasons, that the judgment of the Supreme Court merges with that of the High Court and where-after review petition cannot be filed; (iv) that Kunhayammed (supra) has been followed in National Housing Coop. Society Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 149, Palani Roman Catholic Mission Vs. S. Bagirathi Ammal (2009) 16 SCC 657, Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011) 4 SCC 602, Bakshi Dev Raj Vs. Sudheer Kumar (2011) 8 SCC 679, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij (2010) 8 SCC 701 and Sri Ram Builders Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 102; (v) that the earlier judgment also of a three Judges Bench in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm Vs. K. Santhakumaran (1998) 7 SCC 386 turned on its own facts; in that case SLP was dismissed on merits, after issuance of notice and a full contest between the parties; it was in such a situation that the Supreme Court held that subsequent to dismissal of SLP in that case, review petition could not have been entertained by the High Court; (vi) that it is not as if Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) was not noticed in Kunhayammed (supra); it was held to be not laying down the law to the contrary; (vii) that the judgments in K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 and Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383 though subsequent to Kunhayammed R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 3 of 12 (supra) and "opined in passing" that a review petition subsequent to dismissal of SLP is not maintainable but are of two Judges Benches and again turn on their own facts; (viii) that K. Rajamouli (supra) in fact has been considered in Gangadhara Palo (supra) where it has been held that K. Rajamouli (supra) is not a precedent; (ix) that Meghmala (supra) has been considered in Sri Ram Builders (supra) as contrary to Kunhayammed (supra) and Gangadhara Palo (supra); (x) that the correctness of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) has in any case been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Vs. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 291; (xi) that though in the facts aforesaid, there is no conflict of opinion but even if it were to be held so, as per the judgment dated 10th February, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CRL) No.2444/2006 titled Gopa Manish Vora Vs. Union of India and Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera Vs. Umrao AIR 1981 P&H 213, it is open to the High Court to follow that judgment which in its opinion lays down the law more correctly; (xii) that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India 2016 (154) DRJ 698 though on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) holding review to be not maintainable after dismissal of SLP but is per incuriam Gangadhara and Sri Ram Builders (supra) and other judgments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Smt. Gopa Manish Vora vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 February, 2009

5. The senior counsel for the review petitioners has contended (i) that once the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of a SLP without recording reasons, it is as if no appeal was ever filed or entertained since in the absence of grant of special leave, there is no appeal in existence; (ii) that where a SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and equally when it is dismissed in limine without recording reasons, the High Court‟s judgment neither merges into any proceedings before the Supreme Court nor is it in any manner affected by the filing and subsequent withdrawal or dismissal of the SLP; (iii) that a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 expressly concerned with the issue of maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal in limine of the SLP R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 2 of 12 and after noticing conflicting judgments held that a review petition can be filed subsequent to the dismissal of an SLP inasmuch as at the stage of dismissal of an SLP, there exists no appeal in the eyes of law as at that stage the Supreme Court is exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction; only when the Supreme Court grants leave in SLP and converts it into an appeal and the appeal thereafter is disposed of with or without reasons, that the judgment of the Supreme Court merges with that of the High Court and where-after review petition cannot be filed; (iv) that Kunhayammed (supra) has been followed in National Housing Coop. Society Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 149, Palani Roman Catholic Mission Vs. S. Bagirathi Ammal (2009) 16 SCC 657, Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011) 4 SCC 602, Bakshi Dev Raj Vs. Sudheer Kumar (2011) 8 SCC 679, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij (2010) 8 SCC 701 and Sri Ram Builders Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 102; (v) that the earlier judgment also of a three Judges Bench in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm Vs. K. Santhakumaran (1998) 7 SCC 386 turned on its own facts; in that case SLP was dismissed on merits, after issuance of notice and a full contest between the parties; it was in such a situation that the Supreme Court held that subsequent to dismissal of SLP in that case, review petition could not have been entertained by the High Court; (vi) that it is not as if Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) was not noticed in Kunhayammed (supra); it was held to be not laying down the law to the contrary; (vii) that the judgments in K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 and Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383 though subsequent to Kunhayammed R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 3 of 12 (supra) and "opined in passing" that a review petition subsequent to dismissal of SLP is not maintainable but are of two Judges Benches and again turn on their own facts; (viii) that K. Rajamouli (supra) in fact has been considered in Gangadhara Palo (supra) where it has been held that K. Rajamouli (supra) is not a precedent; (ix) that Meghmala (supra) has been considered in Sri Ram Builders (supra) as contrary to Kunhayammed (supra) and Gangadhara Palo (supra); (x) that the correctness of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) has in any case been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Vs. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 291; (xi) that though in the facts aforesaid, there is no conflict of opinion but even if it were to be held so, as per the judgment dated 10th February, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CRL) No.2444/2006 titled Gopa Manish Vora Vs. Union of India and Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera Vs. Umrao AIR 1981 P&H 213, it is open to the High Court to follow that judgment which in its opinion lays down the law more correctly; (xii) that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India 2016 (154) DRJ 698 though on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) holding review to be not maintainable after dismissal of SLP but is per incuriam Gangadhara and Sri Ram Builders (supra) and other judgments.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 9 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Indo Swiss Time Limited vs Umrao And Ors. on 23 February, 1981

5. The senior counsel for the review petitioners has contended (i) that once the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of a SLP without recording reasons, it is as if no appeal was ever filed or entertained since in the absence of grant of special leave, there is no appeal in existence; (ii) that where a SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and equally when it is dismissed in limine without recording reasons, the High Court‟s judgment neither merges into any proceedings before the Supreme Court nor is it in any manner affected by the filing and subsequent withdrawal or dismissal of the SLP; (iii) that a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 expressly concerned with the issue of maintainability of a review petition after the dismissal in limine of the SLP R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 2 of 12 and after noticing conflicting judgments held that a review petition can be filed subsequent to the dismissal of an SLP inasmuch as at the stage of dismissal of an SLP, there exists no appeal in the eyes of law as at that stage the Supreme Court is exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction; only when the Supreme Court grants leave in SLP and converts it into an appeal and the appeal thereafter is disposed of with or without reasons, that the judgment of the Supreme Court merges with that of the High Court and where-after review petition cannot be filed; (iv) that Kunhayammed (supra) has been followed in National Housing Coop. Society Vs. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 149, Palani Roman Catholic Mission Vs. S. Bagirathi Ammal (2009) 16 SCC 657, Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011) 4 SCC 602, Bakshi Dev Raj Vs. Sudheer Kumar (2011) 8 SCC 679, Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij (2010) 8 SCC 701 and Sri Ram Builders Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 102; (v) that the earlier judgment also of a three Judges Bench in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm Vs. K. Santhakumaran (1998) 7 SCC 386 turned on its own facts; in that case SLP was dismissed on merits, after issuance of notice and a full contest between the parties; it was in such a situation that the Supreme Court held that subsequent to dismissal of SLP in that case, review petition could not have been entertained by the High Court; (vi) that it is not as if Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) was not noticed in Kunhayammed (supra); it was held to be not laying down the law to the contrary; (vii) that the judgments in K. Rajamouli Vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 and Meghmala Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383 though subsequent to Kunhayammed R.P. No.335/2013 in W.P.(C) No.494/1991 Page 3 of 12 (supra) and "opined in passing" that a review petition subsequent to dismissal of SLP is not maintainable but are of two Judges Benches and again turn on their own facts; (viii) that K. Rajamouli (supra) in fact has been considered in Gangadhara Palo (supra) where it has been held that K. Rajamouli (supra) is not a precedent; (ix) that Meghmala (supra) has been considered in Sri Ram Builders (supra) as contrary to Kunhayammed (supra) and Gangadhara Palo (supra); (x) that the correctness of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) has in any case been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Vs. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 291; (xi) that though in the facts aforesaid, there is no conflict of opinion but even if it were to be held so, as per the judgment dated 10th February, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CRL) No.2444/2006 titled Gopa Manish Vora Vs. Union of India and Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera Vs. Umrao AIR 1981 P&H 213, it is open to the High Court to follow that judgment which in its opinion lays down the law more correctly; (xii) that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India 2016 (154) DRJ 698 though on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) holding review to be not maintainable after dismissal of SLP but is per incuriam Gangadhara and Sri Ram Builders (supra) and other judgments.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 117 - Full Document
1   2 Next