recall of order - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fresh SLP Allowed After Unconditional Withdrawal of Earlier Petition

27Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fresh SLP Allowed After Unconditional Withdrawal of Earlier Petition

The Supreme Court held that a second Special Leave Petition challenging the same judgment is not maintainable after an earlier SLP was dismissed and a subsequent recall petition was withdrawn without liberty to approach the Court again. The principle of finality in litigation bars re-agitating the same issue inter-partes, even if questions of law are kept open. Facts Of The Case: The litigation originated from a judgment dated May 15, 2012, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No.1679/2010, concerning pensionary benefits payable by the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited to its retirees. This judgment was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 26, 2024, in LPA No.316/2012. The Bank challenged this Division Ben...

Supreme Court Halts Transfer of Investigation to CBI, Calls High Court’s Order Illegal

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot review or recall its own order under the inherent powers of Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) once it has attained finality. Such power is barred by Section 362 CrPC, which only permits the correction of clerical errors. The Court quashed the impugned orders directing transfer of investigation to the CBI as they amounted to an impermissible review. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, a granite mining businessman, alleged criminal intimidation, theft, and criminal conspiracy by accused individuals, including a former Revenue Minister. Following his complaint, FIRs were registered. Dissatisfied with the local police investigation, which filed a negative report in one case, he approached the Rajasthan High Court seek...

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...