Learn about the concept of review petitions and how to draft them before the Supreme Court of India. If you are someone who wants to practice in the Supreme Court or if you are preparing for the Supreme Court Advocate on Record exam, then this article is a must-read for you.
Table of Contents
Introduction
As a litigation lawyer from Mumbai, I had the privilege of working on a wide range of matters in the District Courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court.
After practising for so many years, one thing is for sure: practising in the Supreme Court is the most exciting and nerve-wracking.
It is exciting because you are arguing in the highest Court of law against the legal luminaries in the field whom you have idolised.
It is daunting because there is no room for mistakes, as any order passed by the Supreme Court is the final word on the matter.
A few months back, I had a colleague who had a matter in the Supreme Court.
I happened to be present in the Court when she was arguing the case. Unfortunately, her appeal was dismissed, but I reached out to her immediately after my matter and told her that there appears to be an error in the judgment and advised her to file a review petition.
She had a glimmer of hope, but since she had less experience practising in the Supreme Court, she asked me, “Can you help me draft a review petition?”
One thing that I have learnt in this field is always to help junior lawyers as they are the future senior lawyers or judges. So I agreed to help her without hesitation.
I explained to her everything she needed to know about the review petition.
In one week, we filed the review petition, and guess what, we obtained a favourable order. My colleague was very happy, and I was happy for her that I could help her out.
In this blog, I will explain to you everything about review petitions and, most importantly, how to draft them.
What is a review petition?
The term “review” means to re-examine.
In the legal context, it means that the courts can revisit their own judgment or Order to correct specific errors.
A review petition is a formal application filed before the Supreme Court in order to request it to scrutinise its final decision for mistakes that may have led to an unjust outcome.
What is the legal framework that governs review petitions?
Article 137 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to review any judgment or Order, subject to laws made by the Parliament or Supreme Court Rules.
In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602], the Supreme Court has stated, de hors Article 137, it possesses the inherent power of ex debito justitiae (which means “from a duty of justice”) to recall an Order made by it earlier if the Court made it by mistake.
This implies that one of the basic tenets of the administration of justice is that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the Court. If a man has been wronged, that wrong must be remedied.
Some of the situations where the Court may exercise such a power are:
(1) violation of a fundamental right;
(2) violation of the principles of natural justice;
(3) mistake of the Court;
(4) judgment obtained by fraud;
(5) the Court made the earlier Order without jurisdiction.
Having said that, the scope of examination by the Supreme Court in review is very limited and differs in civil and criminal cases.
Under Article 145(e) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is authorised to make Rules as to the conditions subject to which the Court may review any judgment or Order. Basically, it confers powers on the Supreme Court to frame procedural rules for review.
In exercise of this power, Order XLVII has been framed under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which deal with the review petition.
What are the grounds for filing a review petition?
A review is in no way an appeal in disguise. This means that the Supreme Court is not rehearing the appeal all over again. The normal rule is that judgment once delivered is final.
A departure from that principle can be justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
According to Rule XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, in a civil proceeding, review of a Court decision will lie on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. They are as follows:
(1) Discovery of new and important matter of evidence;
This is applicable in case of evidence which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.
(2) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
For instance, misinterpreting a statute or overlooking a binding precedent.
(3) Any other sufficient reason
For example, there are certain unmeritorious observations in the judgment against the petitioner.
The Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka [(1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595] has held that the expression, “any other sufficient reason” has an expanded meaning and a decree or Order passed under misapprehension of the true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power.
How to draft a review petition?
We will consider the following facts to draft a review petition.
Explanation of the clauses has been given in red.
Brief Facts: The Petitioner, Priya Sharma, a founding director of Horizon Ventures Pvt. Ltd., filed a Company Petition No. 15 of 2015 before the Company Law Board, Delhi, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents on account of illegal allotment of 60,000 shares, unauthorized transfer of 2,00,000 shares, and her wrongful removal as director. On 20.11.2015, the Company Law Board set aside these acts, whose decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court on 12.04.2016. The Respondents partially complied with the said order by reinstating the Petitioner as director on 10.10.2018, but failed to cancel the share allotments, restore shares, or update Registrar of Companies (ROC) records, despite an undertaking on 15.06.2019 to comply by 30.09.2019. The Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 456/2018, which the High Court dismissed on 10.03.2024, relying on a fabricated board resolution dated 05.07.2017. The Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 013245/2024) filed by the Petitioner was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court on 15.11.2024.
We will begin with drafting the synopsis.
SYNOPSIS
A synopsis is a brief summary of the matter and must include the order being challenged, the nature of the dispute, the main grounds of the challenge, and the relief sought. It should highlight the important points that form the foundation of the case, ensuring the court understands the core issues at the outset.
The Petitioner is constrained to file the present petition seeking review of the final order dated 15.11.2024, vide which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss SLP (C) No. 013245/2024 in limine. The aforesaid Special Leave petition was filed challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 10.03.2024 in COCP No. 456 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had refused to exercise the contempt jurisdiction qua the respondents herein for blatant and wilful violation of the order of the High Court dated 12.04.2016 and Learned Company Law Board dated 20.11.2015.
The Petitioner filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Company Law Board, seeking removal of the directors due to acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents by way of illegal allotments of shares which diluted the shareholding of other petitioners and illegal removal of the petitioner from the position of directors. The same was decided in favour of the Petitioner, and all illegal acts done by the Respondents were set aside vide a detailed order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Company Law Board. The said order was assailed by the Respondent before the Hon’ble High Court, which upheld the same vide order dated 12.04.2016.
The Respondents failed to comply with the said order, as a result, whereof the contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No. 456/2018, came to be filed against them. Subsequently, on 15.06.2019, the Respondents undertook to comply with the said order by 30.09.2019. However, the Respondents partially complied with the order and only reinstated the Petitioner as director but failed and neglected to comply with other directions of the said order.
Pursuant to the order, the Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 10.03.2024, dismissed the contempt petition, relying on a fabricated board resolution dated 05.07.2017, ignoring the undertaking and statutory violations under the Companies Act, 2013.
This Hon’ble Court relied exclusively on the order issued by the Hon’ble High Court and did not delve into the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12.04.2016
and the undertaking recorded therein by the respondents herein.
The sole basis for dismissing the contempt is the reliance upon the affidavit and resolution filed by the respondent. However, it cannot be considered reliable as it is founded on false premises, and the Respondent has failed to provide any evidence to support or corroborate his claims.
This Hon’ble Court, without delving into the merits of the case, has affirmed the cryptic order of the Hon’ble High Court, placing the petitioner in a vulnerable position, particularly since this is the final court of appeal. Both courts have abstained from attempting to ascertain the factual accuracy and truthfulness of the affidavit submitted by the Respondent.
Further, the pleadings placed on record by the Review Petitioner herein were not even considered; the specific averments regarding the partial compliance and twisting of facts by the Respondents were not even adverted to by the Hon’ble Court before dismissing the present SLP. Hence, the interference of this Hon’ble Court is warranted under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, so as to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Hence, the instant Review Petition.
Moving on to the next part, which is the list of dates.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
The list of dates and events is a chronological sequence of significant events relevant to the case. It must be detailed to enable the court to understand the entire matter at the threshold.
| Date | Event |
| 15.08.1995 | Horizon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated with Priya Sharma, Vikram Malhotra, and others being the directors of the company. |
| 2015 | Priya Sharma filed a Company Petition No. 15/2015 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Company Law Board, Delhi, seeking removal of the directors due to acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents by way of illegal allotments of shares which diluted the shareholding of other petitioners and illegal removal of the petitioner from the position of directors. |
| 20.11.2015 | The Company Law Board delivered its final order in C.P. No. 15/2015, and set aside the illegal acts of allotment of shares, transfer of shares and cessation of the petitioner as a director. |
| 12.04.2016 | Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 20.11.2015 in C.P. No. 15/2015, the Respondents filed Company Appeal No. 123/2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which upheld the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Company Law Board and directed to give effect to its order. |
| 05.07.2017 | A board meeting of Horizon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was convened, from which the Petitioner was deliberately excluded. A resolution was passed falsely claiming cancellation of 60,000 shares and transfer of 2,00,000 shares, without her knowledge or consent. |
| 15.03.2018 | The Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.456/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for non compliance with the orders dated 20.11.2015 and 12.04.2016. |
| 10.10.2018 | The Respondents partially complied with the said order by reinstating the Petitioner as director during the Annual General Meeting, but failed to cancel the allotment of shares, restore the 2,00,000 shares, or file requisite changes with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). |
| 15.06.2019 | The Respondents undertook before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Contempt Petition No. 456/2018 to fully comply with the orders dated 20.11.2015 and 12.04.2016 by 30.09.2019, including updating ROC records and issuing revised share certificates. |
| 20.01.2020 | The Respondents filed an affidavit admitting partial compliance and sought modification of their undertaking dated 15.06.2019, falsely alleging non cooperation of the Petitioner, which prevented filing changes with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). |
| 10.03.2024 | The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed Conempt Petition No.. 456/2018, relying on the Respondents’ affidavit and the fabricated resolution dated 05.07.2017. |
| 15.11.2024 | Aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner filed an SLP (C) No. 013245/2024 before this Hon’ble Court, which came to be dismissed in limine, thereby declining to interfere with the order of the Hon’ble High Court. |
| ___.12.2024 | Hence, the present Review Petition. |
This section of the petition must mention the court that is going to hear the case and the nature of the jurisdiction of the Court under which it will entertain the petition, along with the case number, names and description of the parties.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2024
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 013245/2024
(Reconsideration/review of the final order dated 15.11.2024 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) No. 013245/2024)
BETWEEN: POSITION OF PARTIES
| IN SLP | IN REVIEW | |
| PRIYA SHARMA W/O AJAY KUMAR, R/O 12, SAKET NAGAR, NEW DELHI, DELHI | Petitioner | Petitioner |
| VERSUS | ||
| 1. VIKRAM MALHOTRA S/O RAJESH MALHOTRA, DIRECTOR, HORIZON VENTURES PVT. LTD., A/24, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, DELHI | Respondent No.1 | Respondent No.1 |
| 2. SMT. NEHA MALHOTRA W/O VIKRAM MALHOTRA, DIRECTOR, HORIZON VENTURES PVT. LTD., A/24, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, DELHI | Respondent No.2 | Respondent No.2 |
| 3. MR. ARJUN MALHOTRA S/O VIKRAM MALHOTRA, DIRECTOR, HORIZON VENTURES PVT. LTD., A/24, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, DELHI | Respondent No.3 | Respondent No.3 |
REVIEW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER
ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH THAT:
You start the review petition by explaining why you are filing it. This is your introduction paragraph stating the order that is being challenged in the petition, and you annex the order in the petition.
- The Petitioner, Priya Sharma, is constrained to file the present petition seeking review of the final order dated 15.11.2024, vide which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss SLP (C) No. 013245/2024 in limine. The aforesaid Special Leave petition was filed challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 10.03.2024 in COCP No. 456 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had refused to exercise the contempt jurisdiction qua the respondents herein for blatant and wilful violation of the order of the High Court dated 12.04.2016 and Learned Company Law Board dated 20.11.2015. A true copy of the order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is annexed hereto as “Annexure P 1”.
Thereafter, you provide the brief facts that encompass the entire dispute between the parties and you annex all the necessary documents. You can consider the list of dates as a reference to draft the facts, but you must not simply reproduce the contents from the list of dates.
- That the brief facts leading to the filing of the present Review Petition are outlined hereunder:
2.1. The Petitioner filed a Company Petition No.15/2015 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Company Law Board, Delhi, in the year 2015, seeking removal of the directors due to acts of oppression and mismanagement by the Respondents by way of illegal allotments of shares which diluted the shareholding of other petitioners and illegal removal of the petitioner from the position of director.
2.2. Subsequently, on 20.11.2015, the Company Law Board delivered its final order in C.P. No. 15/2015, and set aside the illegal acts of allotment of shares, transfer of shares and cessation of the petitioner as a director. A true copy of the order 20.11.2015 passed by the Company Law Board is annexed hereto as “Annexure P 2”
2.3 Thereafter, on 12.04.2016, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 20.11.2015 in C.P. No. 15/2015, the Respondents filed Company Appeal No. 123/2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, which upheld the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Company Law Board and directed to give effect to its order. A true copy of the order 12.04.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is annexed hereto as “Annexure P 3”
2.4. On 05.07.2017, a board meeting of Horizon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. was convened, from which the Petitioner was deliberately excluded. A resolution was passed falsely claiming cancellation of 60,000 shares and transfer of 2,00,000 shares, without her knowledge or consent. Thereafter, on 15.03.2018, the Petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.456/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for non-compliance with the orders dated 20.11.2015 and 12.04.2016.
2.5. Subsequently, on 10.10.2018, the Respondents partially complied with the said order by reinstating the Petitioner as director during the Annual General Meeting, but failed to cancel the allotment of shares, restore the 2,00,000 shares, or file requisite changes with the Registrar of Companies (ROC).
2.6. Pursuant thereto, on 15.06.2019, the Respondents undertook before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Contempt Petition No. 456/2018 to fully comply with the orders dated 20.11.2015 and 12.04.2016 by 30.09.2019, including updating ROC records and issuing revised share certificates.
2.7. Thereafter, on 20.01.2020, the Respondents filed an affidavit admitting partial compliance and sought modification of their undertaking dated 15.06.2019, falsely alleging non-cooperation of the Petitioner, which prevented filing changes with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). A copy of the affidavit 20.01.2020 filed by the Respondents in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is annexed hereto as “Annexure P 4”
2.8. Subsequently, on 10.03.2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed Contempt Petition No. 456/2018, relying on the Respondents’ affidavit and the fabricated resolution dated 05.07.2017. A true copy of the order 10.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is annexed hereto as “Annexure P 5”
2.9. Aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner filed an SLP (C) No. 013245/2024 before this Hon’ble Court on 15.11.2024, which came to be dismissed in limine thereby declining to interfere with the Order of the Hon’ble High Court.
Due to the aforesaid order, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court by way of the present review petition.
- GROUNDS
You start by mentioning the grounds in support of the petition. Remember that grounds always begin with “Because”.
The Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; however, on account of inaction on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner is unable to manage the company and benefit from the shares.
3.1 Because the non-consideration of the specific averments regarding the partial compliance and twisting of facts by the Respondents deprived the Petitioner herein of his fundamental right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
As we have seen above, a review can be filed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Since the High Court and the Supreme Court passed an order without verifying the genuineness of the documents filed by the Respondent, it caused a grave miscarriage of justice and needs to be rectified.
3.2 Because it is an error apparent on the face of the record that the reliance was placed on the false averments made in the additional affidavit and the minutes of the meeting of which the petitioner was not a part.
Similarly, the Respondent had already given an undertaking to the High Court, and the issue of filing a false affidavit in an attempt to put the entire blame on the Petitioner reeks of malafide intent on the part of the Respondent.
The fact that the Respondent did not actually comply with the undertaking goes to the root of the matter, which ought to have been considered by the High Court and the Supreme Court, but the same went unnoticed, which is a serious error.
3.3 Because, the Respondents herein had undertaken before the Hon’ble High Court as recorded in the order dated 15.06.2019 in Contempt Petition No. 456/2018 that order dated 20.11.2015 and 12.04.2016 have been partially complied and that the needful compliance with ROC records and updating the same regarding the cancellation of 60,000 shares and restoration of 2,00,000 shares on or before 30.09.2019. It is needless to state that at this juncture, the Respondent was well aware of the order regarding appointment of valuers and valuation of shares (independent proceedings) before the Hon’ble Company Law Board and its order dated 26.11.2018. In spite of this knowledge, the counsel for the Respondents herein had given the aforesaid undertaking before the Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the affidavit dated 20.01.2020 filed by the Respondents before the High Court is in the teeth of the aforesaid undertaking recorded on 15.06.2019, which was neither challenged nor withdrawn by any order of the Court. Hence, the Hon’ble High Court fell into grave error by not considering the aforesaid undertaking and only relying on affidavits and board resolutions without considering that the actual compliances were never done, and dismissal of the petition was in the teeth of the Order dated 15.06.2019.
3.4 Because the Respondents have only partially complied with the Orders dated 20.11.2015 of the Company Law Board and 12.04.2016 of the Hon’ble High Court. The Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that there can be no question of partial compliance, and complete compliance must take place.
3.5 Because, the Respondent, despite having given an undertaking before the court to present documents demonstrating their adherence to the cancellation of transfer and allotment of shares, has tried every ways and means possible to non comply with the court’s orders/directions which is writ large from the affidavit and application filed by the Respondent.
On account of non-consideration of material facts, the High Court has allowed the Respondent to escape their liability by misleading the Court and causing injustice to the Petitioner.
3.6 Because the Hon’ble High Court has erred in deciding upon the question of facts in a contempt proceeding, which is in teeth of the settled position of law. By way of an Order dated 10.03.2024, the High Court has stamped the illegal acts of the Respondent, thereby subjecting the Petitioner to the consequences of the Respondent’s wrongdoing.
3.7 Because the reliance placed by the Hon’ble High Court on the minutes dated 05.07.2017 is entirely misplaced. The entire meeting was orchestrated with the intent to create an impression for the court that they were adhering to the court Orders. However, in reality, their objective was to mislead the court into believing compliance when, in fact, they lacked evidence to substantiate these claims, except for the minutes.
As mentioned earlier, the Respondent had miserably failed to corroborate the claims with evidence and take steps in compliance with the order and undertaking made before the Court.
3.8 Because the Respondents have failed to substantiate the claims made by them in the additional affidavit and application dated 20.01.2020, they have failed to file the changes made with the Registrar of Companies.
All these material facts and circumstances were not considered by the Supreme Court, which warrants a review and reconsideration.
3.9 Because the pleadings placed on record by the Petitioner herein were not even considered, the specific averments regarding the partial compliance and twisting of facts by the Respondents were not even adverted to by the Hon’ble Court before dismissing the present SLP (C) No. 013245/2024 by the Order dated 15.11.2024.
You have to mandatorily state that you have not filed any other petition against the Order.
- That the Petitioner herein has not filed any other or similar Review Petition before this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
Finally, you mention the prayer clause requesting a review of the final Order. Here is how the prayer clause shall look in the present case
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Review/ Reconsider the final order dated 15.11.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 013245/2024;
b) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Filed By:
[____________________]
Advocate for the Petitioner
New Delhi
Dated: ___.12.2024
What are the mandatory documents to be annexed to a review petition?
The Handbook on Supreme Court Practice & Procedure, 2017, provides the following document that must be mandatorily annexed to a review petition:
- a certified copy or authenticated copy of the order or judgment sought to be reviewed; and
- a certificate of the advocate on record certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds admissible under the Rules.
What is the limitation period to file a review petition?
As per Order XVLII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review petition must be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment or order.
You must know this because it is always advisable to file the review petition within time; otherwise, it gives a hint to the court that the parties are not serious about the petition, and it is only a tactic to delay the result.
Unless there are some genuine reasons that prevented the filing of the petition within time, the petition may be dismissed, and sometimes with costs. If there is a delay in filing the petition, an application ought to be filed to condone the delay in filing the petition.
Who hears a review petition, and what is the adjudication process?
As per Order XVLII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a review petition shall be circulated to the same judge or bench of judges that delivered the judgment or order sought to be reviewed.
If the same judge or the bench is unavailable for some reason, the Chief Justice shall allocate the matter before a new bench.
Upon a petition for review, the Court may dispose of the review petition by circulation, which means the same is communicated without hearing the Party. However, the petitioner may supplement his petition with additional written arguments.
Therefore, a review petition is accompanied by an application for permission to grant an open court hearing, where the Bench is requested to first hear the Petitioner before passing any orders. If the Court finds that there is some merit in the matter, it will pass an order allowing the above application. This in no way implies that the review petition is allowed. It means that the Court will hear the matter in open court.
For instance, the Supreme Court, in the case of Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others, [(2014) 9 SCC 737], held that review petitions arising out of cases involving the death penalty should not be disposed of without affording an opportunity for oral hearing and in such cases, the minimum bench strength should be of atleast three judges.
In either case, the Court may either dismiss the petition or direct notice to the opposite party.
As per Order XVLII Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, if the Court either reverses or modifies its formal decision in the case on the ground of mistake of law or fact, the Court, may, if it thinks fit in the interests of justice to do so, direct the refund to the petitioner of the court fee paid on the application in whole or in part, as it may think fit.
Conclusion
A review petition is a very important legal remedy to correct errors in judgments and prevent miscarriages of justice. With this blog, you are equipped to draft a review petition. If you are aspiring to be an Advocate on record or intending to practice in the Supreme Court, then I will advise you to pick up a case and practice drafting a review petition, which will help you improve your drafting skills and also help you stand out among your peers.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
- Can a second review petition be filed in the same matter?
As per Order XVLII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, if a review petition has been disposed of, no further application for review shall be entertained in respect of the same matter.
- When can a review petition be filed in criminal proceedings?
According to the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, in a criminal proceeding, no review can be filed in criminal proceedings, except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, the scope of review in a criminal matter is very limited.
- Can a review petition be filed during the pendency of an appeal?
A review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party may be filed by the party who is not appealing from such decree or order.
However, a review cannot be filed where the ground of such appeal is common to the review petitioner and the appellant (who has challenged the judgment in appeal), or when the review petitioner, being the respondent, can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.
- Can reference be made to a larger bench in review?
The nine judge bench hearing “the Sabarimala reference” in the case of Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 121] held that the Supreme Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its review jurisdiction.
- Can costs be imposed in case of a review petition?
Yes, the Supreme Court may impose costs if it finds the petition to be frivolous or vexatious, to prevent its misuse.
Allow notifications
Leave a Reply