https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165246 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment under Art. 145, finding it a reasonable measure to manage judicial time and expedite the disposal of review petitions. The Court affirmed that while oral hearings are significant, their necessity must be contextually determined, and their discretionary limitation in review petitions was justified. The Court also clarified that the amended rule did not discriminate between civil and criminal review petitions, ensuring a consistent and fair application of the review process. The writ petitions challenging the amendment were dismissed without any order as to costs. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165246 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment under Art. 145, finding it a reasonable measure to manage judicial time and expedite the disposal of review petitions. The Court affirmed that while oral hearings are significant, their necessity must be contextually determined, and their discretionary limitation in review petitions was justified. The Court also clarified that the amended rule did not discriminate between civil and criminal review petitions, ensuring a consistent and fair application of the review process. The writ petitions challenging the amendment were dismissed without any order as to costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165246