Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Md. Nijamuddin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(S). 19812 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022
Permission - Special Leave Petition - Dismissal
Fact of the Case:
The court granted permission to file the petition but dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court was not inclined to entertain the present petition and requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously within a year.
Issues: Permission to file petition, Dismissal of Special Leave Petition, High Court's role
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided not to entertain the petition but emphasized the need for the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and the High Court was requested to decide the appeal within a year.
ORDER
1. Permission to file petition is granted.
2. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
4. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned judges of the High Court are requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and in any case, within a period of one year from today.
The court's discretion in entertaining petitions and the importance of expeditious appeal decisions by the High Court
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
Interlocutory orders are generally not interfered with by higher courts.
The court granted permission to file the special leave petition but allowed the petitioner to withdraw it with the liberty to approach the High Court for an early hearing and disposal of the matter p....
The court has the discretion to condone a delay in preferring a Review Petition, but the grounds taken must make out an error apparent on record to justify interference.
The dismissal of the Review Petition due to the absence of a substantial question of law and the failure to establish any error apparent on record.
The court's decision emphasized the flexibility provided by the Limitation Act, Section 5, in extending or condoning the period of limitation for filing written statements.
Delays in filing appeals must be satisfactorily explained; inadequate reasons result in dismissal of applications for condonation.
Courts may refuse to condone delays in filing petitions if the explanation offered is unsatisfactory.
The court considered the delay in preferring the review petition, the substantial questions of law, and the grounds for the Review Petition in reaching its decision.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
