WHAT NEXT AFTER DISMISSAL OF SLP

Second Review petition against the order of Supreme Court is barred and the court has come down heavily on applications for clarifications, modifications etc.,which it has viewed as review petitions in disguise. The provisions of Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules bars further application for review in the same matter.

An application fo review is possible, but it should be filed within  thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.

AFTER DISMISSAL OF SLP THE ORDER OF CAT REACHED ITS FINALITY.NOTHING CAN BE FILED BY GOVT. SO CONTENDING ALL THE FACTS SUBMIT ONE REPRESENTATION TO GOVT. REQUESTING TO CARRY OUT ORDER OF CAT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME LIMIT. AFTER EXPIRY OF THE STIPULATED TIME, IMMEDIATELY FILE CONTEMPT PETITION BEFORE THE CAT BENCH AS PROVIDED UNDER RULES TO THAT EFFECT.

Dear,

Once the matter has been adjudicated by the Appealate forum on merits, thereafter no remedy is left to avail beofre the original forum. Therefore, any petition or application is not maintainable before CAT.

In contempt proceedings the government would explain that as to how any directions or order of the court could not be followed. So its better to wait for filing of response by the Government.

Thanks

after dismissal of slp, review in hc is maintainable with the limitation or by sec.5

Respected and learned Sirs, I fiind thiru.raajaa having  stated that " after dismissal of slp, review in hc is maintainable with the limitation or by sec.5'

But Sir would u be kind enough to throw some elucidatory llight on a relevant portion quoted  below from the famous case of KUNHAYAMEED  & Ors  vs STATE OF KERALA & Anr [ 2000 (6) SCC 359: JT 2000 (9) SC 110  AIR 2000 SC 2587] -

" A  petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a  non-speaking  order or by a speaking order.  Whatever  be  the phraseology  employed  in  the  order of dismissal, if  it  is  a non-speaking  order,  i.e.   it  does   not  assign  reasons  for dismissing  the special leave petition, it would neither  attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by  the  Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution  for there  is  no  law  which has been declared.   If  the  order  of dismissal  be  supported  by reasons then also  the  doctrine  of merger  would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised was  not  an  appellate jurisdiction but merely  a  discretionary jurisdiction  refusing to grant leave to appeal.  We have already dealt  with this aspect earlier.  Still the reasons stated by the Court  would  attract  applicability  of   Article  141  of   the Constitution  if  there  is a law declared by the  Supreme  Court which  obviously would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in  India  and  certainly  the parties  thereto.   The  statement contained  in  the  order other than on points of  law  would  be binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under  challenge  on the principle of judicial  discipline,  this Court  being the apex court of the country.  No court or tribunal or  parties  would have the liberty of taking or  canvassing  any view  contrary to the one expressed by this Court.  The order  of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light  the  case was considered not fit for grant of leave.   The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 but still, the case  not  being  one where leave was granted,  the  doctrine  of merger  does not apply.  The Court sometimes leaves the  question of  law  open.  Or it sometimes briefly lays down the  principle, may  be, contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and  yet would  dismiss the special leave petition.  The reasons given are intended for purposes of Article 141.  This is so done because in the  event of merely dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely  that an argument could be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have differed in law with the High Court.”

Frighteningly ,  why does the Apex Court holds that “ The statement contained in the order other than on points of lawwouldbe binding on the parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under challengeon the principle of judicialdiscipline,this Court being the apex court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. "

In respect of what that  “ no court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of taking or canvassingany view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. "

Please sisr, speak up.

there is a recent judgment of supreme court where a review under certern condition can be filed in high court even if SLP has been rejected the judgment is as below

Review petition in exceptional circumstances can be filed in High Courts even after the apex court had dismissed a special leave petition.

The Supreme Court today said mere observations made by it cannot be treated as a law or a precedent and a
A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra said in a judgement that the apex court court cannot take affront if the high court entertains a review petition even after the Supreme Court had dismissed a special leave petition.

"In our opinion, the above observations cannot be treated as a precedent at all. We are not afraid of affronts. What has to be seen is whether a legal principle is laid down or not. It is totally irrelevant whether we have been affronted or not."

"A mere stray observation of this court, in our opinion, would not amount to a precedent. The above observation of this court is, in our opinion, a mere stray observation and hence not a precedent, " the bench said.

The apex court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal by Gangadhara Rao challenging the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to dismiss his petition in a property dispute on the ground that his SLP was already dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Rao had contended his SLP was dismissed without assigning any reason by the apex court and hence a review petition before the high court was maintainable.

Agreeing with the view, the apex court said "by a judicial order, the power of review cannot be taken away as that has been conferred by the statute or the Constitution. This court by judicial orders cannot amend the statute or the Constitution."

The apex court said a special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy and, hence, it can be dismissed for a variety of reasons and not necessarily on merits.

"We cannot say what was in the mind of the court while dismissing the special leave petition without giving any reason. Hence, when a special leave petition is dismissed without giving any reason, there is no merger of the judgment of the High Court with the order of this Court. Hence, the judgment of the High Court can be reviewed since it continues to exist, though the scope of the review petition is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record," the bench said.

erging story. Watch this space for updates as more details come in

FILED ON: Mar 09, 2011 18:49 IST , EDITED ON: Mar 09, 2011 18:49 IST

FILED IN: Judiciary|Supreme Court

In my view it is simple when the government have gone to the SC against the order and it is dismissed now the governent will have to implement the order which legally stands today. So far the contempt petition is concerned it is very likely that the court may order for implementing the order which stands today within a specific time frame in view of the order of dismissal in the Supreme Court. It will also be in the interest of the contempt petitioner to pray for specifically ordering a time frame for implementing the ordfer or giving a undertaking from the contemner's side for such implementation.

Contempt proceeding will only be initiated when there is a willful disobeidence of the order, in this case the government has tried hard to set aside the order passed against them. AS MR PARIDA SAID THE JUDGEMENT HAS ATTAINED ITS FINALITY AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE ORDER.

No other view is possible.

In my case the Orders passed by the Industrial Court as well as by the single Bench of the High Court are per incuriam.  I filed an SLP.  While dismissing my SLP in limine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the question of law open. The Hon'ble Labour Court rejected the application of my opponent for dismissal of my ULP Complaint, on the basis of the said per incuriam Orders passed by the said Courts under different provisions of law.  My opponent has filed a Revision Application before the Industrial Court  for setting aside the Order passed by the Ld. Labour Court.

Will the Labour Court bound by the per incuriam orders passed under diffeerent provisions of law, different Court?