TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court liberalizes review petition rules, emphasizes maintaining legal principles</h1> <h3>Gangadhara Palo Versus Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court condoned a delay in filing a review petition, emphasizing that a liberal view should have been taken by the High Court. The Court ... - Issues involved: Delay in filing review petition, maintainability of review petition after dismissal of special leave petition.Delay in filing review petition: The Supreme Court condoned a delay of 71 days in filing a review petition before the High Court, stating that a liberal view should have been taken by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the review petition should have been decided on merits despite the delay.Maintainability of review petition after dismissal of special leave petition: The Respondent argued that the review petition was not maintainable as the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court had been dismissed. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine of merger applies when the Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition with reasons, leading to the judgment of the lower court merging into the Supreme Court's order. In such cases, there can be no review of the lower court's judgment. Conversely, if a special leave petition is dismissed without reasons, the judgment of the lower court continues to exist and can be reviewed for errors apparent on the face of the record.The Court clarified that a judgment which continues to exist can be reviewed, with the scope limited to errors apparent on the face of the record. It emphasized that the review petition is maintainable in such cases, even if the special leave petition had been dismissed.In response to the argument that filing a review petition after the dismissal of a special leave petition would be an affront to the Supreme Court's order, the Court held that such observations cannot be treated as a precedent. It emphasized that a legal principle must be established for a decision to serve as a precedent. The Court asserted that a mere stray observation does not constitute a precedent.The Court concluded by allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, condoning the delay in filing the review petition, and remanding the matter to the High Court for a decision on the review petition on merits in accordance with the law and after hearing all concerned parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
