Legal Reference Library

In Sasi vs Aravindakshan Nari, the Supreme Court has issued several guidelines relating to review petitions :- 1) High courts to dispose of review petitions as expeditiously as possible. 2) An endeavour has to be made by the high courts to dispose of the applications for review with expediency. 3) It is the duty and obligation of a litigant to file a review and not to keep it defective, as if a defective petition can be allowed to remain on life support, as per his desire. 4) It is the obligation of the counsel filing an application for review to cure or remove the defects at the earliest. 5) The prescription of limitation for filing an application for review has its own sanctity. 6) The registry of the high courts has a duty to place the matter before the judge/bench with defects, so that there can be pre-emptory orders for removal of defects. 7) An adroit method cannot be adopted to file an application for review and wait till its rejection and, thereafter, challenge...

The Delhi High Court in Kanoria Industries vs Union Of India held that a review petition is maintainable before the high court after the special leave petition (SPL) is dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court. A division bench of Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw was disposing of the preliminary objection to the very maintainability of a review petition on the ground that the SLP preferred against the order of which review is sought was dismissed.  A review was sought of the judgment dated 13th July, 2012, of dismissal of the writ petition.... The petitioners preferred SLP(C) No.31982/2012 against the said judgment, which came up before the Supreme Court on 7th December, 2012, and the following order was passed:  “Upon hearing counsel, the Court made the following order. After some arguments, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court in ...