Special Leave Petition - How To File SLP - Article 136

10/27/2020 Special Leave Petition - How to File SLP - Article 136
Search
Legal Service On: laws in India
India.com
Online Copyright Registration
Call Ph no 9891244487 or Email at [email protected]
Law forum
Legal Services Legal Advice

Re: Property rights - Adopted Child
File Special leave Petition Dear Sir
Lawyers Search
Contact us to File SLP in Supreme Court As if now file a suit for permanent and mandatory inju Human Rights
complaint stating the medical conditions of your fathe
Get Instant excess to a top Notch lawyer from Accident Claims
Supreme court to Help you with your Filing and Court Even if the word is removed about rights in the immo Animal Law
appearance. Oct 19, 2020 5:42 GST
Call Ph no: 9650499965 Environment Law
Re: Flat ownership issue with wife
Dear Sir Third Party Insurance
Constitutional Law Articles Transfer of Petition

Powered by fee
Special Leave Petition Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India has been given extraordinary jurisdiction under File Caveat
Article 136 of the Constitution. By virtue of this Article, the court can grant Media Laws
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence Tribunals Within The Meaning of Article Public Interest
or order in any cause or matter, passed or made by any court or tribunal in 136 Litigation
the territory of India. There is no limit, as in other Articles where it is It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that Contract laws
provided that an appeal can lie only from a judgment, decree or final order. every decision or order by an authority under a law Library
Even from interim orders, leave to appeal is permissible. Whereas under duty to act judicially is not subject to appeal to the Law Book-Store
other Articles, appeals lie to the Supreme Court from the High Courts, there Supreme Court. Under Article 136 an appeal lies to
is no such restriction in Article 136 and appeals lie from any court or the Supreme Court from the adjudication of Courts Contact Us
tribunal in the territory of India. The only restriction imposed is contained in and Tribunals only. An adjudication of a Court or Contact Us
sub-clause (2) of the Article. Article 136 reads as follows: Tribunal must doubtless be judicial, but every
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court- authority which by the Constitution or authority
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its specially conferred upon it is required to act
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, judicially, is not necessarily a Tribunal for the
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by purpose of Article 136. The meaning of the word
any court or tribunal in the territory of India. â€˜Tribunal, for the purposes of Article 136 was
discussed by Fazal Ali, J. in Bharat Bank Ltd. v.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. The Court held:
sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or Can we then say that an Industrial Tribunal does
under any law relating to the Armed Forces." fall within the scope of Article 136? If we go by a
mere label, the answer must be in affirmative. But

we have to look further and see what are the main
functions of the Tribunal and how it proceeds to
How to le Special leave petition in Su…
Su…
discharge those functions. This is necessary
because I take it to be implied that before an
appeal can lie to this Court from a tribunal it must
perform some kind of judicial function and partake
to some extent of the character of a Court. Now

there can be no doubt that the Industrial Tribunal
has, to use a well-known expression, 'all trappings
Scope And Extent of The Jurisdiction of The Court Under Article 136 of a Court' and performs functions which cannot
but be regarded as judicial."
Since its establishment, the Supreme Court has defined the scope of its jurisdiction
whenever opportunity arose. It has laid down the limits within which it would exercise its
In Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles
powers under this Article. Though the are unlimited, the Court has always tried to
Ltd., a question arose whether the arbitrator
exercise the same within the ambit of certain principles. It has by and large followed the
appointed by consent of parties under Section 10-
practice of the Privy Council and the Federal Court in this regard.
A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can be
regarded as a Tribunal under Article 136 of the

The principles for granting special leave to appeal were very succinctly laid down by the
Constitution. The Court held that an arbitrator Top
Federal Court in Kapildeo Singh v. King Emperor. The Federal Court discussed the
www.legalserviceindia.com/Supreme-court/slp.htm#:~:text=Special Leave Petitions Against Decree In Second Appeals&text=disputes in other cases.,… 1/16
various decisions of the Privy Council and stated: acting under Section 10-A was not a tribunal under
"Though this Court is no longer bound by the principles which have been laid down by it Article 136 even though having some of the
defining the limits within which interference with the course of criminal justice dispensed trappings of a Court. It was held that though the
in the subordinate Courts is warranted and to remove all misapprehensions on the decision of the arbitrator was quasi-judicial in
subject, it would be useful to refer to some of the cases in which those principles have character and amounted to a determination or
been enunciated and explained" order under Article 136(1), the arbitrator was not a
tribunal under the Article, as the State had not
The Court inter alia laid down the following propositions of law: invested the arbitrator with any judicial power of
adjudication, and the power of adjudication was
1. Leave to appeal in criminal cases could only be given where some clear departure derived by him from the agreement between the
from the requirements of justice is alleged to have taken place. parties. The Court observed:
"Article 136(1) refers to a Tribunal in
2. The criminal proceedings would not be reviewed unless it be shown that by a contradistinction to a court The expression 'a
disregard of the forms of legal process or by some violation of the principles of natural Court' in the technical sense is a Tribunal
justice or otherwise substantial and grave injustice has been done. constituted by the State as a part of ordinary
hierarchy of courts which are invested with State's
3. The exercise of prerogative takes place only where it is shown thatinjustice of a inherent judicial powers. The Tribunal as
serious and substantial character has occurred. A mere mistake on the part of the courts distinguished from the Court, exercises judicial
below, as for example, in the admission of improper evidence, will not suffice if it has not powers and decides matters brought before it
led to injustice of a grave character. Interference is not advised even if a different view of judicially or quasi-judicially, but it does not
evidence is possible. constitute a court in the technical sense. The
Tribunal, according to the dictionary meaning, is a
4. In a criminal appeal brought by special leave, the Court is not concerned with formal seat of justice; and in the discharge of its functions,
rules, but only with the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. it shares some of the characteristics of the court".
5. To interfere with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so Further, the Court observed:
outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice and misdirection as such, even It would thus be noticed that apart from the
irregularity as such, will not that suffice and that there must be something which in the importance of the trappings of a Court, the basic
particular case deprives the accused of the substance of fair trial and the protection of and essential condition which makes an authority
the law. or a body a tribunal under Article 136, is that it
should be constituted by the State and should be
In Pritam Singh v. States, the Supreme Court laid down the broad principles within invested with the State's inherent judicial power".
which it would exercise its jurisdiction in granting special leave under this Article. The
Court observed: In Jaswant Singh Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand,
"On a careful examination of Article 136 along with the preceding article, it seems clear the Court held that a Conciliation Officer exercising
that the wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under it is to be powers under clause 29 of the Order promulgated
exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only, and as far as possible a more or less under Sections 3 and 8 of the U.P. Industrial
uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of Disputes Act was not a tribunal within the meaning
matters which can come up before it under this article. By virtue of this article, we can of Article 136, as he was not invested with the
grant special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in income tax cases, in cases which judicial power of the State. In Harinagar Sugar
come up before different kinds of tribunals and in a variety of other cases. The only Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, the
uniform standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances is that the Court held that an order made by the Central
Court should grant special leave to appeal only in those cases where special Government in an appeal under Section 111(3) of
circumstances are shown to exist. the Companies Act, 1956 was an order made by
the Tribunal, and hence an appeal could lie to the
The Privy Council have tried to lay down from time to time certain principles for granting Supreme Court.
special leave to criminal cases, which were reviewed by the Federal Court in Kapildeo v.
The King, (supra). It is sufficient for our purpose to say that though we are not bound to In a case under the Punjab Welfare Officers
follow them too rigidly since the reasons, constitutional and administrative which Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules,
sometimes weighed with the Privy Council, need not weigh with us, yet some of those 1952, the Court had occasion to discuss in detail
principles are useful as furnishing in many cases a sound basis for invoking the the meaning of the word "Tribunal'. The Court
discretion of this Court in granting special leave. Generally speaking, this Court will not observed:
grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, "Tribunals which fall within the purview of Article
that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents 136(1) occupy a special position of their own under
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against." the scheme of our Constitution.
Top
The overriding 'nature of the power exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 136 Special matters and questions are entrusted to
and limitations implicit in its exercise were discussed in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. them for their decision and in that sense, they
Commissioner of income Tax. The Court observed: share with the courts one common characteristic:
"It is not possible to define with any precision the limitations on the exercise of the both the courts and the tribunals are 'constituted
discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court by the constitutional provision made in by a State and are invested with judicial as
Article 136. The limitations, whatever they be, are implicit in the nature and character of distinguished from purely administrative or
the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be executive functions. They are both adjudicating
exercised sparingly and with caution and in special and extraordinary situations. bodies and they deal with and finally determine
disputes between parties which are entrusted to

Beyond that it is not possible to fetter the exercise of this power by any set formula or their jurisdiction. The procedure followed by the
rule. All than can be said is that the Constitution having trusted the wisdom and good courts is regularly prescribed and in discharging
sense of the Judges of this Court in this matter, that itself is a sufficient safeguard and their functions and exercising their powers, the
guarantee that the power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and that its courts have to conform to that procedure. The
exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of procedure which the tribunals have to follow may
overriding constitutional powers. not always be so strictly prescribed, but the
approach adopted by both the courts and the
It is, however, plain that when the Court reaches the conclusion that a person has been tribunals is substantially the same, and there is no
dealt with arbitrarily or that a Court or tribunal within the territory of India has not given a essential difference between the functions that
fair deal to a litigant, then no technical hurdles of any kind like the finality of finding of they discharge. As in the case of courts, so in the
facts or otherwise can stand in the way of the exercise of this power because the whole case of tribunals, it is the State's inherent judicial
intent and purpose of this Article is that it is the duty of this Court to see that injustice is power which has been transferred and by virtue of
not perpetrated or perpetuated by decisions of Courts and tribunals because certain laws the said power, it is the State's inherent judicial
have made the decisions of these Courts or tribunals final and conclusive." function which they discharge. Judicial functions
and judicial powers are one of the essential
The purpose and scope of Article 136 was discussed by a Bench of five Judges in Bihar attributes of a sovereign State and on
Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, where the Court observed: considerations of policy, the State transfers its
It may, however, be pointed out that this Court was never intended to be a regular court judicial functions and powers mainly to the courts
of appeal against orders made by the High Court or the sessions court or the established by the Constitution; but that s not
magistrates. It was created as an Apex Court for the purpose of laying down the law for affect the competence of the State, by appropriate
the entire country and extraordinary jurisdiction for granting special leave was conferred measures, to transfer a part of its judicial powers
upon it under Article 136 of the Constitution so that it could interfere whenever it found and functions to tribunals by entrusting to them the
that law was not correctly enunciated by the lower courts or tribunals and it was task of adjudicating upon special matters and
necessary to pronounce the correct law on the subject. This extraordinary jurisdiction disputes between parties. It is really not possible or
could also be availed by the rt for the purpose of correcting grave miscarriage of justice, even expedient to attempt to describe exhaustively
but such cases would be exceptional by their very nature. It is not every the features which are common to the tribunals
and the courts, and features which are distinct and
Case where the Apex Court finds that some injustice has been done that it would grant separate The basic and the fundamental feature
special leave and interfere. That would be converting the Apex Court into a regular court which is common to both the courts and the
of appeal and moreover, by so doing Apex Court would soon be reduced to a position tribunals is that they discharge judicial functions
where it will find itself unable to remedy any injustice at all on account of the tremendous and exercise judicial powers which inherently vest
backlog of cases which is bound to accumulate." in a sovereign State.
As already observed, the Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 136 in a variety of Applying the tests, the Court held that the State
cases. The general principles discussed above apply in all cases, but it may be useful to Government exercising appellate jurisdiction under
highlight the approach of the Supreme Court with reference to particular illustrative Rule 6(5) and (6) of the Punjab Welfare Officers
subject matters. Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules,
1952 was a tribunal under Article 136.
New Pleas Raised For The First Time In Appeals Under Article 136
Legal Effect of Dismissal In Limine of A Special Leave Petition
Practice of Supreme Court In Respect of Condonation of Delay In Filing Special Leave
Petition
Notice Before Granting Special Leave in Special Leave Petition:
1. Power To Remand The Case Back To The Tribunal or High Court,
2. Supreme Court Can Pass Orders For Interim Relief In Appeals Under Article 136
3. A Party Can Compromise The Matter During The Pendency of Appeal Under Article
136
4. Hypothetical Questions Are Not Decided By SC

Top
Powers of Court To Grant Relief Under Article 136
Compromise During A Party Can Compromise The Matter During The Pendency of
Appeal Under Article 136
Hypothetical Questions Are Not Decided By The Supreme Court
Special Leave Petitions Against Orders of Industrial Tribunals
Exemption From Surrender - Limited Leave Granted - Appeal Under Article 136 Does
Not Become In Fructuous
Notice For Enhancement of Sentence - Moulding The Relief

Illustrative Instances of Interference Under
Special Leave Petitions Against Decree In Second Appeals Article 136
In Om Prakash v. Lauti Ram, the Court stated that under
The scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the
Article 136 the Supreme Court will entertain an appeal against a
Court has already been discussed in sub-chapter
decree passed in second appeal if a substantial question of law
(b) above. Since the Court has a wide discretion
of general or public importance arises which may not only
under Article 136, it is difficult to elaborate all
determine the dispute between the parties, but will be a precedent for guidance for
grounds for interference. A few of the grounds on
determination of similar
which the Supreme Court may interfere with the
disputes in other cases. The Court may, if it appears that substantial injustice has orders of the courts below are elucidated
resulted or that there had been no proper trial of the case or for other similar hereinafter by way of illustration:
reasons, interfere with the order or the decree passed by the High Court in second Absence of Speaking Order
appeal. The mere fact that some question of law arises out of the decision of the In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Workers' Union,
High Court will not enable a party to claim a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. the Court observed that judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities from whose decisions an appeal lies to
it by special leave under Article 136, should always
Special Leave Petitions In Criminal Matters
give reasons in support of their conclusion. The
In Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of A.P., the Supreme Court has defined the scope of recording of reasons is essential for
interference under Article 136 in criminal matters a follows: variousreasons. First, it is calculated to prevent
unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the
Although the powers of this Court under that article are very wide, this Court, following the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put
practice adopted by the Judicial Committee has prescribed limits on its own power and in criminal the authority on the alert and minimise the chances
appeals, except under exceptional circumstances it does not interfere with the findings of fact of unconscious infiltration of personal as or
reached by the High Court unless it is of the opinion that the High Court had disregarded the unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will
forms of legal process or had violated the principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and
grave injustice has resulted. This Court does not ordinarily reappraise the evidence if the High legitimate by a reasonable man, and will discard
Court has approached the case before it in accordance with the guidelines laid down by this Court irrelevant or extraneous considerations, Second, it
unless some basic error on the part of the High Court is brought to the notice of this Court. It is is a well known principle that justice should not
best to bear in mind that except in certain special cases, the High Court is the final Court of only be done, but should also appear to be done.
appeal and this Court is only a Court of Unreasoned conclusions may be just, but they may
special jurisdiction. not appear to be just to those who read them. A
judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will
In Dalbir Kaur (Smt) v. State of Punjab, the Court highlighted some of the principles governing be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will
interference by the Supreme Court in criminal appeals by special leave: have to wade through the entire record and find for
(1) The Court would not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation of itself whether the decision in appeal is right or
evidence even if it were to take a different view on the evidence; wrong.
(2) the Court will not normally enter into a reappraisal or review of the evidence, unless the In Baboo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court
assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law or procedure or is based on error of observed that when in a criminal trial a number of
record, misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence, for instance, where the ocular accused are convicted of an offence under Section
evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and so on; 302 IPC. and there is only one appeal on facts to
the High Court, ordinarily it is expected that the
(3) the Court would not enter into credibility of, the evidence with a view to substitute its own contentions raised by the accused would receive
opinion for that of the High Court serious consideration at the hands of the High
Court It is undoubtedly open to the High Court to
(4) the Court would interfere where the High Court has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of dismiss such an appeal in limine but it must be by
Top
judicial process, principles of natural justice or fair hearing or has acted in violation of a
mandatory provision of law or procedure resulting in serious prejudice or injustice to the accused; a speaking order.
(5) the Court might also interfere where on the proved facts wrong inferences of law have been Similarly, in Rama v. State of Rajasthan, the
drawn or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and based on no Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136,
evidence. remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh
disposal, when the High Court had affirmed the
The Court further went on to say: conviction by merely observing:
"It is very difficult to lay down a rule of universal application, but the principles mentioned above "After re appreciation of evidence and re-scrutiny
and those adumbrated in the authorities of this Court cited supra provide sufficient guidelines for of the record, 1 find that there is no error apparent
this Court to decide criminal anneals by special leave" in the finding recorded by the learned Judge.
Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the
The Court in the case of Mahesh Chander v/s Delhi Administration, has The Court held that order of conviction passed by the learned Judge."
the same tests as above would be applicable in cases of judgments of acquittal and conviction. In
Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, where after reading the judgments of the Courts below, i.e. Emphasizing the need to give reasons even in
the Sessions Court and the High Court, the Court entertained a doubt as regards the case of dismissal of a writ petition, the Supreme
conclusiveness of the complicity of the petitioner, it perused the evidence and came to the Court in Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New
conclusion that the courts had not subjected the evidence to critical analysis on the touchstone of Education Institute, has observed:
human conduct and probabilities and overlooked material admissions leading to miscarriage of
justice. It is a cardinal principle of law which governs our
policy that the court including Writ Court is required
The Court has also held that the benefit of a judgment of acquittal can be given to an accused to record reasons while disposing f a writ petition in
who has not appealed against the order of the High Court if, on the evaluation of the case, it order to enable the litigants more particularly the
reaches the conclusion that no aggrieved party to know the reasons which
conviction of any of the accused was possible. weighed with the mind of the court in determining
the questions of facts and law raised in the writ
A Legislative Enactment Cannot Override or Take Away Powers of The Supreme
Court Under Article 136 of The Constitution petition or in the action brought. This is imperative
for the fair and equitable administration of justice.
In some Acts such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Representation of the People Act, 1951
More so when there is statutory provision for
etc., provision has been made that the order or decision of the Tribunal would be "final and
appeal to the higher court in the hierarchy of courts
conclusive" It was contended that the Supreme Court will have no power to hear an appeal
in order to enable the superior court or the
against such an order under Article 136. The Court has negatived such a contention. The Court
appellate court to know or to apprised of the
has held that it enjoys the power by virtue of the Constitution and nothing short of an amendment
reasons which impelled the court to pass the order
in the Constitution can curtail that power.
in question. This recording of reasons in deciding
cases or applications affecting rights of parties is
In Durga Shanker Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, the Supreme Court observed:
also a mandatory requirement to be fulfilled in
"It is well known that an appeal is a creature of statute and there can be no inherent right of
consonance with the principles of natural justice. It
appeal from any judgment or determination unless an appeal is expressly provided for by the law
is no answer at all to this legal position that for the
itself. The powers given by Article 136 of the Constitution however are in the nature of special or
purpose of expeditious disposal of cases, a laconic
residuary powers which are exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law, in cases where the
order like 'dismissed' or 'rejected' will be made
needs of justice demand interference by the Supreme Court of the land. The Article itself is
without passing a reasoned order or a speaking
worded in the widest terms possible. It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the
order. In other fair play and justice demands that
matter of entertaining and hearing appeals, by granting of special leave, against any kind of
justice must not only be done but must seem to
judgment or order made by a court or tribunal in any cause or matter and the powers could be
have been done"
exercised in spite of the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws.
The Constitution for the best of reasons did not choose to fetter or circumscribe the power
Interference With Findings of Fact
exercisable under this article in any way. Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act
certainly gives finality to the decision of the Election Tribunal so far as that Act is concerned and It has been the practice of the Supreme
does not provide for any further appeal but that cannot in any way cut down or affect the Court not to embark upon an enquiry into
overriding powers which this Court can exercise in the matter of granting special leave under facts and evidence of cases in a special leave
Article 136 of the Constitution." petition. The practice which has been
followed by the Federal Court and the
These cases should be distinguished from the cases where the bar to entertain an appeal from Supreme Court in respect of the interference
the order or decision of a particular tribunal has been provided in the Constitution itself, (for with the findings and the appreciation of the
instance Article 329). This distinction has been brought out in detail in Meghraj Kothari v/s evidence has been adopted from the Privy
Delimitation Commissioner, where the Court observed: Council in Bibhabati Devi v/s Ramendra
In this case we are not faced. with that difficulty because the Constitution itself provides under Narayan Roy, where it summed up the
Article 329(a) that any law relating tothe delimitation of constituencies etc. made or purporting to principles as follows: Top
be made an order under s. 8 or 9 and published under Section 10(1) would not be saved merely (1) The practice applies in the case of all the
because of the use of the expression "shall not be called in question in any court". But if by the various judicatures whose final tribunal is
publication of the order in the Gazette of India it is to be treated as law made under Article 327, the Board.
Article 329 would prevent any investigation by any court of law."
(2) It applies to the concurrent findings of

It has recently been held by the Supreme Court that the provisions of Article 136 form a part of facts of two courts, and not to the
the basic structure of the Constitution.21 In that view of the matter, it may not be open for the concurrent findings of the Judges who
Legislature to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, even by a compose such courts Therefore a dissent by
Constitutional amendment. a member of the appellate court does not
An Undertaking Given By The Tenant To Vacate The Premises Cannot Take obviate the practice.
Away The Right Under Article 136
A Bench of the Supreme Court in R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, took a view that if a tenant before
(3) A difference in the reasons which bring
the High Court had given an undertaking to vacate the premises, he was foreclosed from
the Judges to the same finding of fact will
exercising his option to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The said view was
not obviate the practice.
doubted by a co-ordinate Bench of the Supreme Court in Prashant Ramachandra Deshpande v.

Maruti Balaram Haibath, and the matter was referred to a three-Judge Bench. The three-Judge
(4) In order to obviate the practice, there
Bench held that an appeal filed under Article 136 cannot be dismissed as not maintainable on the
must be some miscarriage of justice or
mere ground that the appellant has given an undertaking to the High Court on being so directed in
violation of some principle of law or
order to keen the High Court's order in abeyance for some time.
procedure Miscarriage of justice means such
a departure from the rule which permeate
By directing a party to a lis to give an undertaking, it was held, no court can scuttle or foreclose a
all judicial procedure as to make that which
statutory remedy, much less a Constitutional remedy. In a recent case, the question whether a
happened not in the proper sense of the
tenant who himself requests for time. to vacate the premises could maintain a special leave
word judicial procedure at all. The violation
petition was left open.

of some principle of law or procedure must
be such an erroneous proposition of law
Conditions Required To Be Satisfied For Invoking Jurisdiction of The Court
that if that proposition of law be corrected,
Under Article 136
the finding cannot stand; or it may be the
A reading of Article 136 would indicate that unless the following conditions are satisfied, the Court
neglect of some principle of law or
will not interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution
procedure whose application will have the
(1) The proposed appeal must be from any judgment, decree,
same effect. The question whether there is
evidence on which the courts arrive at their
determination, sentence or order, that is to say, it must not against a purely executive or
finding is such a question of law.
administrative order. If the determination or order giving rise to the appeal is a judicial or quasi-
judicial determination or order, the first condition is satisfied. It may be in any cause or matter.
(5) The question of admissibility of evidence
is a proposition of law, but it must be such as
(2) That the said determination or order must have been made or passed by any Court or Tribunal
to affect materially the finding. The question
in the territory of India.
of the value of the evidence is not a
sufficient reason for departure from
The Court has further held that unless both the conditions are satisfied, Article 136(1) cannot be
practice.
invoked.
Judicial Or Quasi-Judicial Or A Purely Administrative (Or Executive) Act (6) The practice is not a cast-iron one, and
the foregoing statement asto reasons which
In Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, the Supreme Court held that
will justify departure is illustrative only, and
there was an indefinable yet an appreciable difference between the doing of an
there may occur cases of such an unusual
executive or administrative act or a quasi-judicial act. The question whether an act
nature as will constrain the Board to depart
is a purely ministerial or a judicial one depends on the facts and circumstances of
from the practice.
each case. The Court has further held that where on authority was required to act
judicially either by express provision of the statute under which it acts or by
(7) The practice relates to the findings of the
necessary implications of the said statute, the decisions of such an authority
courts below, which are generally stated in
generally amounted to a quasi-judicial decision. Where, however, the executive or
the order of the court, but may be stated
administrative bodies were not required to act judicially and were competent to
findings on the issue before the Courts in
deal with the issues referred to them administratively, their conclusions could not
the judgments, provided that they are
be treated as quasi-judicial conclusions.
directly related to the final decision of the
court.
In Jaswant Singh Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lachmichand, the Court. following
the decision in Province of Bombay v. K.S. Advani, (supra) laid down the following
In Nihar Singh v. State of Punjah, the Court
tests to determine whether an act is a judicial act: Top
had an occasion to discuss its powers to
interfere with the findings of fact and to

To make a decision or an act judicial, the following criteria must be satisfied: reassess the evidence in hearing appeals
(1) It is in substance a determination upon investigation of a question by the under Article 136. In the words of the Court:
application of objective standards to facts found in the light of pre-existing legal
rules "Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in
the widest phraseology. This Court's
(2) It declares rights or imposes upon parties obligations affecting their civil rights; jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. It
and can, therefore, in its discretion, entertain an
appeal and exercise all the powers of an
(3) that the investigation is subject to certain procedural attributes contemplating appellate court in respect of judgments,
an opportunity of presenting its cases to a party ascertainment of facts by means ofdecrees, determinations, sentences or
evidence if a dispute be on question of fact, and if the dispute be on question of orders mentioned thereinBut this wide
law, on the presentation of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal jurisdiction has to be regulated by the
of the matter on findings based upon those questions of law and fact." practice of this Court."
Applying these tests, the Court held that the Conciliation Officer ingranting or The Court further held that the practice of
refusing permission to alter the terms of employment of workmen at the instance the Privy Council followed by the Federal
of the employer has to act judicially. His decision as not made to depend upon any Court and the Supreme Court is not to
subjective satisfaction; he was required to investigate and ascertain facts, apply interfere on questions of fact except in
objective standards to facts found, and to declare whether the employer makes out exceptional cases when the finding is such
a case for granting permission to alter the terms of employment of his employees. that it shocks the conscience of the Court or
The Court held that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the Order framed by disregard to the forms of the legal
thereunder did not lay down any specific procedure, but the duty cast upon the process or some violation of the principles of
Conciliation Officer to decide the matter after investigating facts by the application natural justice or otherwise, substantial and
of objective standards involved an obligation to evolve a procedure consistent with grave injustice has been done.
the purpose and nature of the enquiry, which assured to the disputing parties an
opportunity to present their respective cases, and to substantiate the same by Although normally the Supreme Court is
evidence and argument. reluctant to interfere with concurrent
findings of fact, if essential ingredients
The question that arose for consideration in some cases before the Court was necessary for the finding of a fact have not
whether orders made by a High Court on the administrative side would amenable in fact been found by the courts below, then
to jurisdiction under Article 136. In Dev Singh v. Registrar Punjab and Haryana the Court is bound to examine the question
High Court, the Court observed: whether injustice or wrong is done. The
There is clear distinction between the courts of law exercising judicial powers and burden of showing that a concurrent finding
other bodies. The decisions by courts are clearly judicial. That is not the case with of two or more courts or tribunals is
bodies exercising administrative or executive powers. In certain matters even the manifestly unjust lies on the petitioner. But
Judges have to act administratively and in doing so, they have to act quasi-judicially once that burden is discharged it is not only
in dealing with the matters entrusted to them. It is only where the authorities are the right but the duty of the Supreme Court
required to act judicially either by express provisions of the statute or by necessary to remedy the injustice.
implication that the decisions of such an authority would amount to a quasi-judicial
proceeding. When Judge in exercise of their administrative functions decide cases, In another case, the Court has observed:
it cannot be said that their decisions ate either judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. "It has been ruled in many cases before that
this Court will not reassess the evidence at
In the instant case, the Court held that the High Court, exercising its powers under large, particularly when it has been
Rule X(2) of the Rules framed by the High Court under Section 35(3) of the Punjab concurrently accepted by the High Court and
Court Rules, 1918 against an order passed by a District Judge dismissing employees the court or courts below. In other words,
of a subordinate court, acts in an administrative capacity. this Court does not form a fresh opinion as
to the innocence or the guilt of the accused.
Suppression of Material Facts And Misleading The Court-Leave Can Be Revoked It accepts the appraisal of the evidence in
Jurisdiction under Article 136 is of extraordinary nature and granting of leave is a the High Court and the court or courts
purely discretionary power. While granting special leave, the Court generally relies below. Therefore before this Court interferes
upon the statement made by the petitioner in the special leave petition. It is, something more must be shown, such as
therefore, of utmost importance that the statement made in the special leave that there has been in trial a violation of the
petition should be true and correct and no attempt should be made to mislead the principles of natural justice or a deprivation
Court. No material fact should be suppressed. Whenever it has been brought to the of the rights of the accused or a misreading
notice of the Court that some material facts have been suppressed or that the of vital evidence or an improper reception or
Top
rejection of evidence which, if discarded or
Court has been misled by the petitioner, the Court has not hesitated to revoke the received, would leave the conviction
special leave granted even at the time of the hearing of such an appeal. In Hari unsupportable, or that the court or courts
Narain v/s Badri Das, the Court observed: have committed an error of the law or of the
forms of legal process or procedure by
"It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth which justice itself has failed."
grounds in an application for special leave, care must be taken not to make any
statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State
for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact of Gujarat, the Court summarized the
contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the circumstances when concurrent findings of
confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading." the courts below in a criminal matter can be
reopened by the Supreme Court in an
In R.A. Rehman Munshi v. V.D. Modi, the Court observed: appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution:
(1) that the finding is based on no evidence,
"A party who approaches this Court invoking the exercise of this overriding or
discretion of the Court must come with clean hands. If there appears to be any (2) that the finding is perverse, it being such
attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statement or by as no reasonable person could have arrived
withholding true information, which would have a bearing on the exercise of the at even if the evidence was taken at its face
discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if a value, or
discretion has been exercised, in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the (3) the finding is based and built on
hearing of the appeal" inadmissible evidence, which evidence, if
excluded from vision, would negate the
In S.M.Newade v. C.J. Bhadke, the Court held that if there was an untrue averment prosecution case or substantially discredit or
regarding material statements or a false statement on a matter of importance or a impair it, or
deliberate untrue statement regarding valuation has been made to mislead the (4) some vital piece of evidence which would
Court, then the special leave grant can be revoked. In the particular facts of this tilt the balance in favour of the convict has
case, however, the Court held that the mistake was not deliberate as the special been overlooked, disregarded wrongly
leave petition was drafted on the basis of the valuation given in the judgment of thediscarded."
High Court itself, which was corrected long afterwards.
The Court will not interfere unless the
The Court has held that were the petitioner's senior counsel before the High Court, findings are vitiated by errors of law or the
made certain concessions and further did not press the grounds in the application, conclusions reached by the Courts below are
the filing of the special leave petition without disclosure of the fact would amount so patently opposed to well-established
to suppression of facts and would disentitle the Petitioner from receiving relief principles as to amount to a miscarriage of
under Article 136 of the Constitution. justice. The Court will interfere in a case
where it finds that the appellate Court has
Legal Services
not at all applied its judicial mind to the
appreciation of the evidence and grave
File Special Leave Petition! File Caveat in Supreme Court injustice has resulted therefrom. Where the
Call us at: 9650499965 / Email at: Right Away Court is satisfied that the findings are
[email protected] Call us at Ph no: 9650499965 vitiated by errors of law or that the

conclusions reached by the courts below are
so patently opposed to well-established
principles of judicial approach, that they can
be characterized as wholly unjustified and
even perverse, it will reassess the evidence
and interfere.
In a case where there were suspicious

circumstances regarding execution and
attestation of a will noted by the High Court
and some difference in the approach of the
two Judges composing the Bench of the High
Court existed, the Supreme Court allowed
the counsel of the parties to go into the
entire evidence so that it could ascertain
whether the High Court reached the right
Top
conclusion or not.
In Indira kaur v. Sheo Lal Kapoor, the

Court observed that there are no fetters on
the powers of the Court under Article 136 to
re-examine the finding and if the Court is
satisfied that great injustice has been done it
is not only the right but also the duty of the
Court to reverse the error and the injustice
and upset the finding, notwithstanding the
fact that the same has been affirmed thrice.
It is not the number of times that a finding
has been reiterated that matters; what really
matters is whether the finding is manifestly
an unreasonable and unjust one in the
context of evidence on record. The Court
observed:
"Article 136 of the Constitution does not

forge any such fetters expressly. It does not
oblige this Court to fold its hands and
become a helpless spectator even when this
Court perceives that a manifest injustice has
been occasioned. If and when the court is
satisfied that great injustice has been done it
is not only the 'right' but also the 'duty of this
Court to reverse the error and the injustice
and to upset the finding notwithstanding the
fact that it has been affirmed thrice. There is
no warrant to import the concept of the
conclusiveness of divorce on the utterance
of Talaq' thrice in interpreting the scope of
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
136. It is not the number of times that a
finding has been reiterated that matters.
What really matters is whether the finding is
manifestly an unreasonable, and unjust one
in the context of evidence on record. It is no
doubt true that this Court will unlock the
door opening into the area of facts only
sparingly and only when injustice is
perceived to have been perpetuated. But in
any view of the matter, there is no
jurisdictional lock which cannot be opened
in the face of grave injustice".
Sometimes, what amounts to a question of

fact has itself been a subject matter of
dispute.
Whether the witness should or should not

be believed is prima facie a matter for courts
of fact to determine and it is a question of
fact. Whether a particular accused is guilty of
criminal conspiracy along with the other for
the commission of the offence is a question
of fact. Whether the parties have entered
Top
into any wagering transaction is a question
of fact.
Whether the appellants are hereditary

tenants or not is a question of fact and the
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the lower courts.53
Whether the consideration mentioned in a
deed of sale had been paid or not is a
question of fact, and also whether there was
sufficient nucleus of joint family property for
acquiring new properties by the manager of
a joint Hindu family is a question of fact.
Whether a deity was not merely a family

deity in which the public had no interest, and
that the properties given, to the deity
constituted a religious and charitable
endowment of a public nature are findings
of fact. The Court further held that a
mistaken inference from documents is no
less a finding of fact if there is no
misconstruction of the documents. Whether
at a partition between members of a joint
Hindu family certain property was left
undivided is a question of fact. The finding
that the plaintiff had attained majority more
than three years prior to the suit is one of
fact.
A finding of the authority hearing objections

to a scheme under Section 68-F of the Motor
Vehicles Act that there was due service of
notice on objectors was a finding of fact. The
finding that the appellant put the signatures
of his father, who was already dead, on the
relevant documents attested them and got
the securities transferred in the name of the
father and received the money from the Post
Office are findings of fact. The question
whether there was a go-slow during a certain
period is a question of fact, and where the
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
there was a go-slow during the period,
ordinarily the Supreme Court will not go into
the findings.
Interference With Exercise of Discretion of

Courts Below:
(a) In the matter of sentence or fine
though nothing prevents the Supreme Court from

interfering with the sentence or fine imposed by the
lower courts, it does not easily do so. As a matter
of practice, the Supreme Court does not grant
special leave where the question is only one of
excessive sentence or fine by the lower courts, but
if e facts and circumstances of a ease-justify, it
may interfere. In Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Top
www.legalserviceindia.com/Supreme-court/slp.htm#:~:text=Special Leave Petitions Against Decree In Second Appeals&text=disputes in other cases… 10/16
Bombay, it was held that:
"It is not the practice of this court to interfere by

special leave in the matter of punishment imposed
for crimes committed, except in exceptional cases
where the sentences are unduly harsh and do not
really advance the ends of justice."
In this case, the Court reduced the sentence on

the ground that the fines imposed were very heavy
and also quite disproportionate to the offences.
In Lalit Mohan Das v/s Advocate General on an

appeal by special leave under the Legal
Practitioners Act, 1879, the Court, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, interfered with the
disciplinary action taken by the High Court and
reduced the punishment imposed. The Court
stated that it would be reluctant to interfere with the
order of the High Court in respect of disciplinary
action to be taken against a member of the Bar
who had been found guilty of professional
misconduct. However, in view of two mitigating
circumstances in the case, viz. that the Munsif
recommended suspension of practice for one year
only and the legal practitioner had filed a written
apology, the punishment imposed by the High
Court was held to be excessive and the period of
suspension was reduced to the period of three
years.
In Pandurang Tukia v. State of Hyderabad, the

Supreme Court converted the death sentence
imposed by the High Court into that of life

imprisonment. The Court held that:
"the sentence should be reduced to transportation

mainly because of the difference of opinion in the
High Court, not only on the question of guilt, but
also on that of sentence. In saying this we do not
intend to fetter the discretion of Judges in the
matter, for a question of sentence is, and must
always remain, a matter of discretion, unless the
law directs otherwise. But when appellate Judges,
who agree on the question of guilt, differ on that of
sentence, it is usual not to impose the death
penalty unless there are some compelling
reasons."
In a recent case, the Supreme Court has, on an

appeal by the State, sentenced a person to death
holding that the exercise of discretion by the High
Court in interfering with the sentence of death
imposed by the Trial Court was not proper.
In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George,

Top
the Court interfered with the sentence of unusual
facts, i.e. the accused had undergone a major part
of the sentence of one year's imprisonment
imposed on him by the trial court till he was
acquitted by the High Court in appeal and he also
remained in imprisonment for some months till the
decision of. the Supreme Court on account of his
failure to furnish bail. The Supreme Court
interfered with the sentence by reducing it to the
period already undergone.
The observations of Bhagwati, J. in Surendra v.

State of U.P. sum up the principles followed by the
Court in respect of interference in sentence in an
appeal by special leave:
The imposition of sentence is always a matter of
discretion and unless this Court finds that the
discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or
capriciously or on unsound principles or that the
Sessions Court or the High Court has not taken
into account any relevant factors in imposing the
sentence, this Court would not be justified in
reducing the sentence, merely because it feels that
a lesser sentence might well have been imposed,"
In the case of Ali Mohamad Pyarji Momin v/s

State of Gujarat, where
the appellants had been convicted of offences
under various sections including that of 406, 477-
A, 420, 120-B IPC and sentenced to various terms
of imprisonment, in the light of the fact that the
incident was of the year 1972 and the appellants
had been facing proceedings for twenty years the
Court reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone.
In another case, six persons were tried for various

offences. Five persons were convicted for offences
under Sections 302/149 and 325/149 and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. The other accused person was sentenced to
ten years RI under Section 304, Part II. On appeal
to the High Court conviction of four accused stood
altered to one under Section 304, Part I, but the life
sentence was maintained. The four accused
persons preferred appeals by special leave. The
Court while maintaining the conviction reduced the
sentence to seven years RI: The Court held that
the benefit of the reduced sentence should also go
to the other accused person who had not preferred
any appeal due to poverty or any other reason.
(b) Other areas of exercise of discretion

In Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothen
Joseph, the Court stated that the Supreme Court
would not lightly interfere under Article 136 of the
Constitution with the concurrent exercise of
Top
discretion of the Courts below under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act. Before it can justly do so, the
appellant must satisfy the Court, on the relevant
facts referred to by the Courts below, that the
exercise of discretion was in a manifestly
unreasonable or perverse way, which was likely to
defeat the ends of justice.
The Court has also held that the award of the costs
and special costs are within the jurisdiction of the
trial court and unless weighty reasons exist, the
Supreme Court would not unsettle the costs
awarded by the trial court or the High court.
In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Secy, U.P.

Bank Employees Union, it was held that whether
a discharged employee must be reinstated in
service or compensation would be an adequate
relief is a matter of discretion. The Tribunal
considered reinstatement proper and on appeal
the Appellate Tribunal agreed with this view. That
being so, there was no reason for interference by
the Supreme Court with the decision arrived at the
exercise of that discretion by awarding
compensation
Interference With Interlocutory Orders

Under Article 136
Generally, the Supreme Court does not entertain

special leave petitions from interim orders passed
by the courts below, However, its powers are not
circumscribed and the Court, in appropriate
matters, can entertain a petition even from interim
orders where justice so requires. In Gangubai
Babiya Chaudhary v. Sitaram Bhalchandra
Sukhtankar, the Supreme Court entertained a
special leave petition against an order vacating the
interim injunction by the High Court of Bombay.
The High Court had earlier granted the injunction
to the petitioners restraining the respondents from
interfering with the possession. The Supreme
Court set aside the order of the High Court on the

ground that the petitioners had a prima facie case
and the balance of convenience also lay with the
petitioners.
In another case, an Indian firm entered into a

contract with a Russian firm for the supply of
construction machinery. In pursuance of that
contract the Indian firm opened a confirmed,
irrevocable and divisible letter of credit with the
Bank of India Limited for the entire value of the
equipment. On the strength of the aforementioned
contract, the Russian firm supplied the machinery.
They were duly taken possession of by the Indian
firm and put to work. The Indian firm complained to
the Russian firm that the performance of the
Top
machinery was not as efficient as represented at
the time of entering into the contract and
consequently it had incurred and continued to incur
considerable loss. The Indian firm filed a suit
praying that the Bank of India as well as the
Russian firm should be restrained from taking any
further steps in pursuance of the letter of credit
opened by the Indian firm Temporary injunctions
were asked for. The trial court granted the
temporary injunction. On appeal to the Supreme
Court, it was held:
Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with interim

orders. But Herein legal principles of great
importance affecting international trade are
involved." The Court further held that:
An irrevocable letter of credit has a definite
implication. It is a mechanism of great importance
in international trade. Any interference with that at
mechanism is bound to have serious
repercussions on the international trade of this
country. Except under very exceptional
circumstances, the Courts should not interfere with
that mechanism."
In Union of India v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.

Ltd., the Court observed:
We should have hesitated to interfere with an
interlocutory order following the usual practice in
this Court. But, where repercussions are
incalculable and the basis of the directions, though
interlocutory, is obscure, the ends of justice
dominate and we may interfere if public interest so
dictates."
In United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, it

was held that the Court's powers under Article 136
of the Constitution are untrammelled, but they are
subject to self-ordained restrictions. The Court
does not, as a matter of rule, interfere with
interlocutory orders, save under very exceptional
circumstances. In this case, as the High Court had
not considered whether the plaintiff had

established a prima facie case, balance of
convenience or irreparable loss, the Court held
that the grant of temporary injunction by the High
Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil
Procedure was wholly unwarranted.
In Maharashtra State Electricity Board v.

Vaman, the Court observed:
"We are conscious of the fact that normally this
Court would not interfere with the interlocutory
orders passed by the High Court. The order in
question, to say the least, is opposed to all well-
recognized principles of service law where by way
of an ad interim order, the writ petition filed by the
Top
respondent has in fact been allowed"
Thus the Court interfered with an interlocutory

order which had the effect of disposing of the main
writ petition itself.
The Court has held that where prima facie it

appears that the interim order cannot be justified
by any judicial standard, the ends of justice and
the need to maintain judicial discipline require the
Supreme Court to interfere with the order and to
indicate the reasons for the interference without
prejudice to the rights of one side or the other.
legal service India - lawy
Interference Under Article 136 Where Mixed

Questions of Law And Fact Are Involved
The Supreme Court has generally entertained an

appeal under Article 136 where mixed questions of
law and fact are involved. In Associated Cement
Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen, the Court
held:
"The question before the Tribunal, and this is also

the question fore us, was the true scope and effect
of cl: (iii) of Section 25-E of the Act, with particular
reference to the expression, 'in any part of the
establishment' occurring therein. That question
was not a pure question of fact, as it involved a
consideration of the tests which should be applied
in determining whether a particular unit is a part of
a bigger establishment. Indeed, it is true, that for
the application of tests certain preliminary facts
must be found; but the final conclusion to be drawn
there from is not a mere question of fact. Learned
Counsel for the Respondent is not, therefore,
justified in asking us to adopt the short-cut of
disposing of the appeal on the footing that a finding
of fact should not be disturbed in an appeal by
special leave."
In that case the Court examined the whole

evidence on record to see whether the conclusion
of the Tribunal was justified. In Lloyds Bank Ltd.
v Pannalal Gupta, the Court held that the status of
Top
a particular category of employees i.e. whether the
employees are workmen or supervisors under the
Industrial Disputes Act, is a mixed question of fact
and law and it was open to the appellant to urge
his contention against the correctness of the
finding of the Tribunal on such a mixed question of
fact and law.
Contact Constitutional Lawyers from Your City
Delhi Chennai Kolkata

Mumbai Hyderabad
Chandigarh Rajkot Thane
Allahabad Jodhpur
Noida Surat Pune
Ahmedabad Cochin
Nashik Indore Nagpur
Janjgir Pondicherry
Jaipur Ranchi Lucknow
1 Comment Sort by Oldest
Add a comment...
Puneshwar Durge
िवशेष अनुमती यािचकेवर पु ा review टाकता येतो काय
Like · Reply · 2d
Facebook Comments Plugin
About Us | Divorce | Terms of use | Family Laws | Lawyers | Legal Article | Sitemap | Contact Us
legal Service India.com is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) Â© 2000-2019
ISBN No: 978-81-928510-0-6
Top

Special Leave Petition - How To File SLP - Article 136

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Leave Petition - How To File SLP - Article 136

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Leave Petition - How To File SLP - Article 136

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/27/2020 Special Leave Petition - How to File SLP - Article 136

Call Ph no 9891244487 or Email at [email protected]

Legal Services Legal Advice

Constitutional Law Articles Transfer of Petition

mere label, the answer must be in affirmative. But

to some extent of the character of a Court. Now

regarded as a Tribunal under Article 136 of the

disputes between parties which are entrusted to

4. Hypothetical Questions Are Not Decided By SC

Special Leave Petitions Against Orders of Industrial Tribunals

Notice For Enhancement of Sentence - Moulding The Relief

(2) It applies to the concurrent findings of

doubted by a co-ordinate Bench of the Supreme Court in Prashant Ramachandra Deshpande v.

petition was left open.

interfere with the findings of fact and to

[email protected] Call us at Ph no: 9650499965 vitiated by errors of law or that the

In a case where there were suspicious

In Indira kaur v. Sheo Lal Kapoor, the

"Article 136 of the Constitution does not

Sometimes, what amounts to a question of

Whether the witness should or should not

Whether the appellants are hereditary

Whether a deity was not merely a family

A finding of the authority hearing objections

Interference With Exercise of Discretion of

though nothing prevents the Supreme Court from

"It is not the practice of this court to interfere by

In this case, the Court reduced the sentence on

In Lalit Mohan Das v/s Advocate General on an

In Pandurang Tukia v. State of Hyderabad, the

imposed by the High Court into that of life

"the sentence should be reduced to transportation

In a recent case, the Supreme Court has, on an

In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George,

The observations of Bhagwati, J. in Surendra v.

In the case of Ali Mohamad Pyarji Momin v/s

In another case, six persons were tried for various

(b) Other areas of exercise of discretion

In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Secy, U.P.

Interference With Interlocutory Orders

Generally, the Supreme Court does not entertain

Court set aside the order of the High Court on the

In another case, an Indian firm entered into a

Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with interim

In Union of India v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.

In United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India, it

not considered whether the plaintiff had

In Maharashtra State Electricity Board v.

Thus the Court interfered with an interlocutory

The Court has held that where prima facie it

legal service India - lawy

Interference Under Article 136 Where Mixed

The Supreme Court has generally entertained an

"The question before the Tribunal, and this is also

In that case the Court examined the whole

Contact Constitutional Lawyers from Your City

Delhi Chennai Kolkata

1 Comment Sort by Oldest

Facebook Comments Plugin