2004 (3) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asivam and Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. ORDER 1. These Special Leave Petitions are against an order dated 12th December, 2003 passed in Review Petitions. It must be mentioned that against the main judgment Special Leave Petitions had earlier been filed. However, when those Special Leave Petitions reached hearing on 1st September, 2003, the following order came to be passed: After arguing for some t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been held by this Court that against an order rejecting an application for review, a Special Leave Petition is not maintainable. This authority is directly on the point in issue. Not only we are bound by it but we are also in agreement with it. Faced with this situation, it is sought to be submitted that this Court in the cases of Green View Tea and Industries v. Collector, Golaghat, Assam a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e cases the question whether a Special Leave Petition is against an Order disposing of a Review Petition was not considered at all. These cases therefore have no relevance at all. On the basis of the ratio in Shankar Motiram Nale's case (supra), we hold that these Special Leave Petitions are not maintainable. They are dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.
Case laws, Decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X