VEDANTA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SESA STERLITE LTD.) versus THE GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.

VEDANTA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SESA STERLITE LTD.) versus THE GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.

The review petitions were dismissed as time-barred under Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 because no cogent grounds for delay were furnished, the petitions were filed after the retirement of the judges who delivered the impugned judgment, and, in any event, no legitimate grounds for review were made out on merits.

Parties
Petitioner: Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd.); Respondent: The Goa Foundation & Ors.; Petitioner: State of Goa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Review Petition (civil) / Review (dismissed)
Outcome
Review petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation, Review of Judgment, Order XLVII Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Institutional Sanctity of Judicial Decision Making
Civil Procedure Procedural Law Judicial Review Limitation Review of Judgment Order XLVII Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 Institutional Sanctity of Judicial Decision Making

Case Brief

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd.)

Petitioner

The Goa Foundation & Ors.

Respondent

State of Goa

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Review Petition (civil) / Review (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review petitions were barred by limitation under Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing review petitions was sufficiently explained
  3. 3 Whether filing review petitions after the retirement of judges who composed the bench is permissible

Ratio Decidendi

The review petitions were dismissed as time-barred under Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 because no cogent grounds for delay were furnished, the petitions were filed after the retirement of the judges who delivered the impugned judgment, and, in any event, no legitimate grounds for review were made out on merits.

Court Disposition

Review petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Review petitions dismissed on the ground of limitation under Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
  • Review petitions dismissed on merits