Special Leave Petition in Indian Law
Therefore, SLP grants the aggrieved party a special permit to be heard by the Supreme Court on appeal against a judgment or order of a court or tribunal in India. The Supreme Court has generally allowed an appeal under section 136 in matters of mixed law and fact. In Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. The Court stated: “The question before it, and it is also the question before us, was what was the actual scope and effect of section 25-E of the Act, in particular with respect to the phrase `in any part of the institution` contained therein. This question is not purely factual, since it concerns an examination of the criteria to be applied in determining whether a particular entity is part of a larger shareholding. It is true that certain preliminary facts must be established for the application of the tests; But the final conclusion to be drawn is not a simple question of fact. Counsel for the respondent therefore does not have the right to ask us to choose the shortcut for the disposition of the appeal on the basis that a finding of fact in an appeal should not be disturbed by special leave. In that case, the Court examined all the material in the file in order to determine whether the Tribunal`s conclusion was justified. In Lloyds Bank Ltd. v.
Pannalal Gupta, the Court held that the status of a certain class of workers, i.e. whether the employees are workers or superiors within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, is a question of mixed fact and law, and the appellant was free to rely on the correctness of the Court`s finding on a question of fact and law as well. mixed. The Supreme Court notes that as a court of last resort, it has the inherent power to correct its own previous decisions that violate the law, the Constitution or fundamental rights and may cause serious injustice to a party. Such a judgment was delivered in Antulay v. RS Naik (AIR 1984, SC 684), in which the applicant sought the setting aside of decisions in an earlier case involving the same parties and questions before the Supreme Court. [G11] A number of decisions mention the extent of the Supreme Court`s powers under section 136, the possibility of upholding applications for special authorization. Those mentioned below are some important judgments that mention SLP.
The particularity of Article 136, which distinguishes it from the general remedies listed in Articles 132 to 135, is as follows. First, it is not limited to appeals against judgments, decrees and final decisions of the High Court, but may also be granted against judgments of the lower courts. Second, section 136 is fluid and flexible compared to sections 132 to 135, which deal with appeals. In essence, this means that judgments, decrees or orders do not have to be final and that appeals are also admissible against interlocutory and interlocutory judgments and may arise from cases or issues of a criminal or civil nature or otherwise. Normally, however, it is generally expected that the applicant will have exhausted all other remedies available by law. [G4] In addition, there must be no law limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [G5] with respect to section 136. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587, concerned the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 and whether it consisted of granting the SLP and considering the appeal at a later stage. The court has the choice to grant the SLP and if it decides not to grant it on the basis of its findings, the court does not have jurisdiction to appeal. However, the mere rejection of the SLP application does not mean that there is res judicata, but only that the case was not suitable for the award of the SLP and that the injured party is free to apply to the court concerned for a review under Article 226. In Ramabhupala Reddy v.
As a State of A.P., the Supreme Court defined the scope of interference under Article 136 in criminal matters as follows: Although the Court`s powers under this article are very broad, the Court has, in accordance with the practice of the Judicial Committee, set limits on its own powers and, in criminal appeals, except in exceptional circumstances, it does not interfere with the findings of fact of the High Court. unless it considers that the High Court has ignored the forms of judicial process or has breached the principles of natural justice or has otherwise committed a grave and substantial injustice. The Court does not normally reconsider evidence where the High Court has dealt with the case before it in accordance with the guidelines laid down by that Court, unless it is informed of a fundamental error.