Referred to Larger Bench V: Maintainability of Review Petitions

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Doctrine of Merger ≠ Universal/Unlimited Application.

Aggrieved by an Order of a High Court, one files a Special Leave Petition, against the Impugned Order, before the Supreme Court. Outset Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, leads to a Review Petition, against the same Impugned Order, before the High Court.

Exercise of Article 136, Two Steps:

  1. [Outset] Dismissal of the Prayer for Special Leave to Appeal [‘Discretionary Jurisdiction’].
  2. Grant of Special Leave to Appeal; Hearing of the Appeal [‘Appellate Jurisdiction’].

Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm, (1998) 7 SCC 386;  Three-Judge Bench

Outset Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions: High Court, Review Petition = Palpably Erroneous.

VERSUS

Kunhayammed, (2000) 6 SCC 359; Three-Judge Bench

Outset Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions: Non-Speaking Order/Speaking Order ≠ Doctrine of Merger.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara, (2012) 12 SCC 291

Question: Referred to Larger Bench.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings of the judges but also curiosities of lawyers and the law. This blog is not of obligation but of delight. I frankly confess my ignorance of much that ought to be included from overseas jurisdictions; and I utter a gentle prayer that those who know better would lighten my darkness. I am confident that I am not alone in my refusal to believe that the law is tedious or that the Indians really like all their law dull. For all that has escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.