Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a special leave petition challenging an order passed in review is maintainable, and whether the question of maintainability of a subsequent special leave petition after withdrawal of the earlier petition without express liberty warrants consideration by a larger Bench.
Analysis: The governing framework considered included the bar under Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against appeal from an order rejecting review, and the line of authority on the effect of withdrawal of a special leave petition and the absence of merger in a non-speaking dismissal. The competing authorities were examined on the question whether liberty to seek review in the High Court, without express permission to file a fresh special leave petition, leaves the door open for a subsequent challenge. The Court found that the issue raises an important question of law with wider consequences and that the competing strands of reasoning require authoritative consideration.
Conclusion: The question of law was not finally answered by the Bench and was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the correctness and scope of the maintainability of a subsequent special leave petition after review-related proceedings raise a substantial question of law with wider implications, the matter may be referred for decision by a larger Bench rather than finally resolved by the referring Bench.