Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.I., SANJIV KHANNA, B.R. GAVAI, SURYA KANT, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Awami National Conference – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Review Petition (Civil) No 226 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1099 of 2019 with Review Petition (Civil) No of 2024 [Diary No 1636/2024] In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1099 of 2019, Review Petition (Civil) No 691 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1104 of 2019, Review Petition (Civil) No 442 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1268 of 2019, Review Petition (Civil) No of 2024 [Diary No 1729/2024] In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1099 of 2019, Review Petition (Civil) No of 2024 [Diary No 1990/2024] In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1099 of 2019, Review Petition (Civil) No of 2024 [Diary No 2800/2024] In Writ Petition (Civil) No 1210 of 2019
Decided on : 01-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of review petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. no error apparent in record. (Para 5) |
| 3. disposition of pending applications. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
1. Applications for listing the review petition in open Court are dismissed.
2. Permission to file the review petition is granted.
3. Permission to appear and argue in person is rejected.
4. Delay condoned.
5. Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the SUPREME COURT RULES 2013. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it only addresses apparent errors, without reevaluating case merits.
The court's decision to reject the Review Petition was based on the lack of justification for interference.
The court dismissed the review petition after finding no error apparent on record.
The grounds raised in a Review Petition must establish an error apparent on record to justify interference.
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.
The court's decision was based on the lack of any apparent error in the original order that would warrant reconsideration.
The court upheld the compensation awarded by the Reference Court as the correct measure and found no error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction.
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
