Abdul Rehman Antulay vs Union Of India: State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1984 Supreme(SC) 113

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.#
Abdul Rehman Antulay, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others etc., Respondents
Writ Petn. (CRL) No. 708 of 1984 and Special Leave Petns. (CRL) Nos. 1149-50 of 1984,
Decided on D/- 17-4-1984.
AND
Abdul Rehman Antulay, Petitoner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others, Respondents
Advocates appeared

Mr. Murli Bhandare, Mr. Govinddas, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Bnina Gupta, Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj, Mr. P.P. Singh Advocates with them, for Petitioner; M/s. Ram Jethmalani, Ashok Desai, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Advocate with them, for Respondents.
# The judgments are printed in the order in which they are given in the certified copy.
## From Bombay High Court in Spl. Cases Nos. 24 of 1982 and 3 of 1983, D/- 13-3-1984 and 16-3-1984.

Advocates:
ASHOK DESAI, BINA GUPTA, GOVIND DAS, H.R.BHARDWAJ, MURLI BHANDARE, P.P.SINGH, RAM JETHMALANI

Headnote:
validity of order and judgment - Challenged - Writ petition challenging validity of order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained - Court wish to make it clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of petitioner, to approach Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which he may be entitled in law to file –Held, learned Judge in deciding matter has followed decision of this Court - Learned Judge was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of learned Judge to follow decision of this Court which is binding on him - Special leave petitions are dismissed.

JUDGMENT

A. N. SEN, J. :— There is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

2. In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which he may be entitled in law to file.

D. A. DESAI, J. :- 3. I broadly agree with the conclusion recorded by my brother.

(ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CRL) NOS. 1149-50 OF 1984)

4. The learned Judge in deciding the matter has followed the decision of this Court. The learned Judge was perfectly justified and indeed it was the duty of the learned Judge to follow the decision of this Court which is binding on him

5. Special leave petitions are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.

For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1358

Click Here to Read the rest of this document