Scribd
Upload
11 views

Issue No. 1

Uploaded by

Vikas Sahu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views

Issue No. 1

Uploaded by

Vikas Sahu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

( Issue No.

1 Whether The Special Leave Petition Is Maintainable Under Article 136 Of The
Constitution Of Indiana? )

Rajeev Favour Judgements

1. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196; , Para 8 and 16


Bharat Bank Limited v. Employees, AIR 1950 SC 188, Para 30, 116.

Preposition - ( Article 136(1) empowers the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana to grant, at its
discretion, Special Leave to Appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal ).

2. Durga Shankar v. Raghu Raj, AIR 1954 SC 520, Para 5

Preposition - It vests the Supreme Court with plenary jurisdiction to entertain and grant appeals,
by way of special leave, against any judgment made by any court in any matter, and these powers
can be exercised irrespective of the provisions for the appeal contained in the Constitution or
other laws.9 Thus, it will not fall under the essentials of exhaustion of local remedies

3. Mathai Alias Joby v. George and Another, (2010) 4 SCC 358, Para 14 and 24

Preposition - The Special Leave Petition is maintainable solely on the ground that the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court has caused a great miscarriage of justice as when all the allegations made
against the Petitioner are looked at their face value no prima facie case is made out against the
Petitioner.

4. Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158, Para 3 and 8

Preposition - The Special Leave Petition is maintainable solely on the ground that the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court of Manas Pradesh has caused a great miscarriage of justice as when all
the allegations made against the Petitioner are looked at their face value no prima facie case is
made out against the Petitioner.

5. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Suresh Chand Jain and Another, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 877, Para 23,24, and 38

Preposition - The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be
invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a
decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant
of special leave.

6. Pritam Singh v. State, 1950 SCC 189, Para 11

Preposition - This Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and
special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in
question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed
against.
7. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323, Para 68,69,
and 71.

Preposition - The Court to interfere with the decision under challenge only if the extraordinary
flaws or grave injustice or other recognised grounds are made out.

8. Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, 1950 SCC 470

Preposition - By Article 32 of the Constitution the Court is empowered to see that the
fundamental rights conferred on the citizens by the Constitution are not in any way affected. By
Article 136 it has been given overriding power to grant special leave to appeal against orders of
courts and tribunals which go against the principle of natural justice and lead to grave miscarriage
of justice.

9. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, Para 13

Preposition - There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this
most basic of human rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is
incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the
heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of
incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in.

10. Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham, (1979) 2 SCC 297, Para 4

Preposition - Article 136 can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, such as when a
question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the
court.
Khushi’s Favour Judgements

1. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, Para

Preposition - Special Leave petition filed under Article 136 of the constitution of Indiana, is not
maintainable as there has been no miscarriage of justice and reasonable procedural adherence
has indeed been followed.

2. Pritam Singh v. State, 1950 SCC 189, Para 11

Preposition - Article 136 should only be exercised in granting to exceptional cases

3. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1954) 2 SCC 602, Para 7 and 8

Preposition – The petition does not arise of an extraordinary situation nor does it seek to
address any substantial question of law and hence cannot be said to be maintainable in the eyes
of the law.

4. Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545, Para 18

Preposition - Right of appeal under article 136 is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached
to the litigation

5. Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 57,
Para 6

Preposition - The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is
substantial would be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and
substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the
sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or
is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.

6. Ujagar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 530, Para 1

Preposition - there is hardly a case civil or criminal that does not raise some question of law or
the other. But no question of law of general public importance is involved in these petitions and
it is time to realize that the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court to grant special leave to appeal can
be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

7. CIT v. P. Mohanakala, (2007) 6 SCC 21, Para 27

Preposition - There is no question of affecting the rights of general public importance as the
general populace is not being deprived of their rights.

8. D.C.M. v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 86, Para 16

Preposition – There should be non-Interference in the decisions of The Lower Court.


9. Union of India v. Rajeswari and Co., (1986) 3 SCC 426

Preposition - The appeal doesn't involve any substantial question of law rather it involves a
pure question of fact and hence, is not maintainable.

10. Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, (2005) 3 SCC 143, Para 18

Preposition - The practice of this Hon'ble Court is not to interfere on questions of fact except
in exceptional cases when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy