SOW CHANDRA KANTA AND ANOTHER versus SHEIK HABIB

SOW CHANDRA KANTA AND ANOTHER versus SHEIK HABIB

Review proceedings do not amount to a re-hearing; the review of an order refusing special leave is not permissible unless there is a glaring omission, patent mistake, or grave error, and such orders have the normal feature of finality.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Sow Chandra Kanta; Petitioner: Sow Chandra Kanta and Another; Respondent: Sheik Habib
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 1975
Procedural Posture
Review Petition / Review of Supreme Court's Order Refusing Special Leave
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Review Jurisdiction, Finality of Orders, Supreme Court Rules
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Review Jurisdiction Finality of Orders Supreme Court Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sow Chandra Kanta

Petitioner

Sow Chandra Kanta and Another

Petitioner

Sheik Habib

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Petition / Review of Supreme Court's Order Refusing Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a review proceeding amount to a re-hearing of an order refusing special leave?
  2. 2 When can a review of a Supreme Court order be entertained under Article 137 and Supreme Court Rules?

Ratio Decidendi

Review proceedings do not amount to a re-hearing; the review of an order refusing special leave is not permissible unless there is a glaring omission, patent mistake, or grave error, and such orders have the normal feature of finality.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Review Petition No. 62A of 1974 dismissed.