Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (4) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri H.P Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General, with regard to the maintainability of the special leave petition against the order passed in a review petition, brings to our notice the judgment and order passed by this Court in Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa 2012 12 SCC 378, Suseel Finance Leasing Co. v. M. Lata 2004 13 SCC 675 and M.N Haider v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 2004 13 SCC 677. 3. Per contra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit, that this Court while observing the maintainability of a special leave petition against the order passed by a writ court in a review petition, has taken into consideration only the provisions under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cited by the learned counsel for Respondent 8, this Court has consistently held that an appeal by way of special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the order rejecting an application for review in view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7 CPC. 6. In Suseel Finance Leasing Co. v. M. Lata at para 3, this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 676) 3. In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput. it has been held by this Court that against an order rejecting an application for review, a special leave petition is not maintainable. This authority is directly on the point in issue. Not only are we bound by it but we are also in agreement with it. Faced with this situation, it is sou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... special leave petition is not maintainable against an order in a review petition. These authorities have not been shown or considered by this Court whilst passing the above orders. Once SLP is not maintainable no orders can/should be passed thereon except to dismiss the same. In view of the settled position, the abovementioned orders cannot be considered to be a precedent. 8. The consistent view of this Court appears to be that the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the order rejecting the review petition alone. 9. In our considered opinion, judicial decorum and discipline is paramount and, therefore, a coordinate Bench has to respect the judgments and orders passed by another coo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... les, that there was no direction to dispense with notice under Section 5-A. The High Court must also clarify whether any such point was pressed before it. In view of the above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the present petition. The special leave petition is allowed to be withdrawn. 12. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the High Court in the review petition, the appellant is once again before us, inter alia, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed in Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India. While considering the special leave petition so filed, this Court had issued notices to the respondents and accordingly, the respondents are before us in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ded from challenging the order dated 29-1-2000 of the High Court by way of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. *** 13. In the result, we hold that the civil appeals are not maintainable and we accordingly dismiss the same. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the appellant or on whether the Authority of the Municipal Council could under law issue the notices to Respondent 8 or take any action in respect of the construction made by him on the land in Survey No. 250/12 in Village Taleigao. 14. Per contra, Mr P.S Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the issue in dispute has been referred to a larger Bench by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates