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 Supreme Court in JSW Infrastructure Limited Versus Kakinada Seaports Limited, held that:- a) This Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) held that the words used in documents cannot be treated to be surplusage or superfluous or redundant and must be given some meaning and weightage. b) The law is well settled that superior courts while exercising their power of judicial review must act with restraint while dealing with contractual matters. A Three Judge Bench of this Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) held that (i) there should be judicial restraint in review of administrative action; (ii) the court should not act like court of appeal; it cannot review the decision but can only review the decision making process (iii) the court does not usually have the necessary expertise to correct such technical decisions.; (iv) the employer must have play in the joints i.e., necessary freedom to take administrative decisions within...

Supreme Court Decisions on Review 1. Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 2. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 3. Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1909 4. Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 5. Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 6. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 7. Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 8. S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 9. Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai, AIR 1941 SC 1 10. Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh, (1836) 1 Moo PC 117 11. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd V. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 12. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 13. Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, AIR 1971 SC 2162 14. O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi, AIR 1971 SC 107 15. Chandra Kante v. Sk Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 16. Kam...

In Seth Industrial Corporation Vs. State, the hon'ble Rajasthan High Court while referring to earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in award of contracts has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme court in various decisions on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The ultimate conclusion of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is this that the High Court can interfere in the contractual matters when the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious, discriminatory or the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say, the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. It has also been held that where the public interest is affected, the court can also interfere in the contractual matters. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, 1994, after examining the en...