Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRCHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
M/s Evolve Business Ventures – Appellant
Versus
The Airport Director(AAI) – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).24990/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-10-2023 in AN No. 2497/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras), (WITH IA No.231481/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
Decided on : 20-11-2023
Special Leave Petition - Dismissal - Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution
Fact of the Case:
The court declined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition and accordingly dismissed it.
Issues: The issue was whether the court should entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided not to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the court.
ORDER :
1. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
The court's discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to grant or refuse special leave to appeal.
The court exercised its discretion to condone delay and dismissed the petition under Article 136 without interference, leaving law questions open.
The main legal point established is that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not warrant interference with the High Court's order.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, affirming no substantial grounds for intervention under Article 136.
The court may condone delay in preferring a review petition if the grounds taken do not justify interference.
Dismissal of petitions and applications with liberty to approach the High Court, and refusal to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution based on the issue raised.
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of grounds for interference under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
The court dismissed the review petition after finding no error apparent on record.
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
