SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 384

G.B.PATTANAIK, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Nayyar Khalil – Respondent


(1) 690 days delay is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. However, we have also considered the merits of the review petition. The impugned order has followed a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskar. Even if the question regarding the legality of the said three-Judge Bench decision is pending scrutiny before the Constitution Bench the same is not relevant for deciding the review petition for two obvious reasons firstly, this was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the civil appeal; and secondly, by the time the impugned order was passed the three-Judge Bench judgment had not been upset and even in future if the Constitution Bench takes a contrary view it would be a subsequent event which cannot be a ground for review as is clear from the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:

"EXPLANATION. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top